Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 4) BILL (By Order)

BRITISH WATERWAYS BILL [Lords] (By Order)

CROSSRAIL BILL (By Order)

EAST COAST MAIN LINE (SAFETY) BILL (By Order)

GREATER MANCHESTER (LIGHT RAPID TRANSIT
SYSTEM) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

WOODGRANGE PARK CEMETERY BILL [Lords]
(By Order)

RIVER HUMBER (UPPER BURCOM COOLING WORKS)
BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday 21 January 1993.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Fines (Ability to Pay)

Mr. Steen: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made as to the success of the points system linking magistrates court fines with the individual's ability to pay.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Wardle): The principles of the scheme were successfully trialled before its full-scale introduction in all magistrates courts from 1 October 1992. It is too early to judge the full effectiveness of the scheme, but I am ensuring that it is closely monitored.

Mr. Steen: I am sure that the House will agree that it is important that the way in which our courts conduct their business should appear to be fair. Does the Minister consider it fair that a man on income support who drives along the A38 at 100 mph should be fined £24—less than a parking fine—while a man driving immediately behind him at the same speed whose disposable income is £100 a week, which is not very much, is fined £1,600 for the same offence? Does that not discriminate against the ordinary man in the street and clobber him although he is not a millionaire?

Mr. Wardle: My hon. Friend will understand that I cannot comment on individual cases. On the principle,

however, he will be aware that offenders' means have long been taken into account by the courts. My hon. Friend will know that magistrates still have total discretion regarding the seriousness of an offence and all relevant factors. I hope that he will also bear in mind that a fine is supposed to be punishment which hits the offender's pocket with the same punitive effect whether he is rich or poor. The scheme provides a framework to make that possible for magistrates courts. The scheme will continue to be monitored.

Mr. Llwyd: In my constituency there were two recent cases of driving without due care and attention, both of similar gravity, but one defendant was fined £800 and the other £25. Does that not strike the Minister as absurd?

Mr. Wardle: The units reflecting the seriousness of the offence may well have been the same, but the assessment of the fines would have depended on the offenders' disposable income. That is the purpose of the scheme. As I said, courts have long taken financial resources into account in deciding fines.

Business Crime

Mr. Ward: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures have been taken to reduce the level of business crime.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Michael Jack): The latest safer cities progress report highlights a wide range of successful crime prevention initiatives that have benefited business, whose own crime prevention efforts have also gained from Home Office research covering issues such as retail crime analysis, shop theft and cheque and credit fraud. We have also supported the business and crime initiative launched by Crime Concern and the Confederation of British Industry.

Mr. Ward: Does my hon. Friend agree that the 300 business watch schemes represent a real commitment by the police and the business community to fight crime in partnership? How does my hon. Friend intend to encourage the extension of such schemes, and what practical help can he give to the participants?

Mr. Jack: I am delighted that my hon. Friend mentioned the word "partnership". That is the key to the way forward. Partnership has certainly been encouraged by the 20 safer city projects, and we have announced our intention to create 20 new safer cities. In addition, I have also had discussions with leading retailers, who are now showing considerable interest in working on crime prevention in partnership with us.

Mr. Redmond: When businesses such as B and Q open on a Sunday they commit a business crime. When will the Minister stop hiding behind local authorities? When will he stop condoning that activity and take positive action to stop those businesses breaking the law?

Mr. Jack: The hon. Gentleman will know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has given a clear idea of the Government's intentions on Sunday trading. Later this month a Bill dealing with the subject will be discussed. The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity then to express his views more forcefully.

Mr. Paice: My hon. Friend has referred to retail crime. He will be aware of the great concern among retailers about large-scale, heavy-duty burglary, including ram raiding. What steps are being taken to reduce the incidence of ram raiding in terms of discussions with retailers and with the Department of the Environment, which controls the planning aspects of the prevention of ram raiding?

Mr. Jack: I recognise the severity of the effects of ram raiding. It is worth pointing out, as this may not be widely known, that ram raiding offences can attract a sentence of up to 10 years' imprisonment if burglary or aggravated burglary is involved.
My hon. Friend should be aware that we are pursuing Car Crime Prevention Year vigorously to ensure that the source of the tools of trade for ram raiders, if one can put it that way, are prevented from being stolen. I shall certainly pass on to the Department of the Environment my hon. Friend's comments relating to protective street furniture.

Mr. Michael: Does the Minister realise that the House is aware that he is being incredibly cheeky in suggesting that he will double the number of safer cities projects when in fact he will produce no extra cash?
On the real question before us, is the Minister aware that crime against business costs more than £10 billion per year, which is equivalent to a third of all NHS spending or 6 per cent. on income tax? Is he aware that fraud in the City of London costs more than £500 million per year? Given the Home Secretary's enthusiasm for putting business men in charge of hospitals, schools and prisons, or perhaps even the police, will the Minister now put some real enthusiasm into taking dramatic steps to sort out business crime?

Mr. Jack: That restatement of a problem that we take only too seriously is merely a thinly veiled apology from the Opposition for their total lack of positive thought on how to deal with the problem. Last week we announced in full detail our plans for the safer cities projects. We always made it clear that there would be a limit on funding for existing projects until the end of 1994.
I am surprised and disappointed that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) gives no weight to the announcement that we made about the National Board for Crime Prevention, which includes a dialogue between business and the Government to address the very problems that he detailed.

Mr. John Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that the outburst from the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) that the House has just witnessed is an outrage on the great majority of businesses in the United Kingdom which wish to co-operate with the police and the Home Office to prevent crime? Can my hon. Friend tell the House what arrangements he has in mind to ensure that business men are encouraged to sponsor crime prevention schemes?

Mr. Jack: I am delighted that my hon. Friend referred to the police in the context of crime prevention. The police are central and play an excellent role. [Interruption.] If Opposition Members disagree with that, they will have a chance to say so later.
As for contributing to crime prevention, we have certainly made it clear that there will be a real opportunity

for local businesses to bring not only their expertise but their resources to help perhaps even to run some of the new 20 safer cities schemes.

Data Protection

Mr. Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the EC data protection directive.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Peter Lloyd): The Government are seeking to achieve a directive as close as possible to the 1981 Council of Europe convention on data processing, on which our law is based. We consider that the convention preserves a proper balance between the rights and interests of data users, data subjects and others.

Mr. Cohen: Will the Government not be adopting double standards if later today they say that they support privacy protection from the press for individuals, from royals to plebians, but then spend their time watering it down for computer records? Why are the Government against the inclusion of manual data and data subject consent before records can be passed to others? Why do they expect France and Germany to have lower standards for their privacy protection than they already have?

Mr. Lloyd: We expect the Germans and the French to have the arrangements that they think best. Data users are well protected under the European convention. The fear is that their real interests will not be better looked after under the directive but rather that the data subjects will have extra expense and inconvenience as their banks, building societies and insurance companies will have to write to them more often to get written permission for routine transfers of information which most people want their banks to do automatically.

Mr. Matthew Banks: Does my hon. Friend agree that, contrary to the impression given by the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), the United Kingdom is in the forefront of data protection? Does he further agree that United Kingdom law is based on the 1981 convention, which has not even been ratified by five of our EC partners?

Mr. Lloyd: That is right. Five of our EC friends have a long way to go. We signed the convention because, after long discussion, we believed that it provided the best protection for the data subjects as well as allowing business to be transacted by electronic means, which is in the interests of everyone, not merely businesses.

Local Police Forces

Mr. Dunn: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is yet in a position to announce the future shape and organisation of local police forces; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I am still considering a range of issues connected with the police service, including the future shape and organisation of local police forces. I shall announce my conclusions when we have proposals to make.

Mr. Dunn: When my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary comes to consider the nature of reforms as presented to him, will he ensure that two things take place: first, that local accountability is maintained; secondly, that nothing is done to damage the integrity, work and competence of the police force of the county of Kent?

Mr. Clarke: Proposals are not being put to me. I am preparing proposals, which, in due course, I shall put to my hon. Friend and to the House. Of course I am determined to make the police service in Britain yet more effective and efficient to tackle the serious problems of lawlessness which we all know that we face. I already have in hand work on quality of service, more effective local policing, the pay and command structure of police forces, and what can be done about policemen who lack the capacity for the job. Now I have announced that I am having a look at the disciplinary procedures for those who face serious charges.
Obviously, I am also looking at structure and financing. I shall certainly bear in mind my hon. Friend's legitimate points when I do so. The relationship between the local police force and the local community is crucial to a good police force in Britain.

Mr. Mandelson: Has the Home Secretary reconsidered the 2 per cent. budget cut forced on my police force in Cleveland as a result of the Government's financial curbs on local authorities, about which I have had a complacent and unsatisfactory letter from his colleague the Minister of State, Lord Ferrers? Does the Home Secretary not realise that unless Government resources match his rhetoric, any reorganisation or tinkering with the management of the local police forces will be regarded by the public with the utmost suspicion?

Mr. Clarke: There has been a further substantial increase in the resources available to the police service nationally and to local government to spend on the police service as a result of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's autumn statement. I shall look up the financial arrangements of the hon. Gentleman's police force to see whether any particular local circumstances explain the difficulties that he describes, but overall we had a good settlement this autumn in the light of the economic recession which we know the country faces. The police service had a bigger increase than any other part of local authority expenditure.

Mr. Sykes: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the tragic murder between Christmas and the new year of an 80-year-old pensioner, Mr. Percy Noble, in Whitby in my constituency? That followed a similar event in September in which PC Moss was tragically blinded in the course of his duties in a so-called joy-riding accident. Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the tremendous anger felt by people in Scarborough and Whitby at those incidents? Is he aware that we want more bobbies on the beat, less paperwork for them to do and, most importantly, the punishment to fit the crime and not the criminal?

Mr. Clarke: I am aware of the tragic events that my hon. Friend describes. I also appreciate that they are only the worst feature of the problems that his constituents and many others face in today's society. That is why I am so determined to ensure that the police are made more

effective and efficient. Although obviously the police cannot reduce the level of crime of their own volition, we have to have the best police force possible to tackle it. For that reason, I am looking at every aspect of police forces, including the relationship between the large numbers of headquarters staff in police forces throughout Britain and the policemen deployed on the ground, where I agree with my hon. Friend that the public most wish to see them and gain the greatest sense of security from them.

Mr. Blair: Does the Home Secretary agree that the most important thing that people want is a say in the policing of their local communities? They would resent it very much if policing were to be controlled by Government boards, stuffed with Government appointees. Would it not therefore be better if he had the broadest possible consultation on the changes, so that the outcome could be based on the interests of the public and not on his obsessive dislike of local government?

Mr. Clarke: First, I should make it clear that any proposals that I make will go out for consultation. I doubt whether that will interest the hon. Gentleman very much because he has already denounced my proposals—just in case—before he even knows what any of them are. The public are concerned about the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes)—about how far the police can be enabled to protect members of the public against the rising level of crime—rather than about the hon. Gentleman's prime concern, which is who sits on what committee, which seems to be a comparatively subordinate question.

Woolf Report

Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress is being made in the implementation of the Woolf report.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The Government's proposals in response to the Woolf report were set out in the White Paper, "Custody, Care and Justice", published in September 1991. The White Paper identified 12 key areas of priority for change. I will write to my hon. Friend with a more detailed account of progress in each of the 12 areas and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House. The White Paper paved the way for agency status for the prison service and work is well in hand to establish the executive agency on 1 April. I have appointed a chief executive designate, Mr. Derek Lewis, who I am sure will give dynamic leadership to the service.

Mr. Amess: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that my constituents in Basildon, where crime is falling, agree with the Woolf report? Does he also agree that the rapid progress in providing humane and modern conditions in our prison, is in stark contrast with the record of the Opposition, who cut capital spending on prisons by one fifth in spite of the fact that the prison population grew by 14.5 per cent?

Mr. Clarke: First, I believe that the encouraging crime statistics in Basildon are a result of the efforts of the local police force and the crime prevention initiatives canvassed a moment ago by my hon. Friend the Minister of State. The Government have certainly set a target of a more enlightened prison regime. We have adopted Lord Justice Woolf's proposals, appointed Judge Tumim to point out


the deficiencies and are moving towards a more modern and effective management system which will deliver that target as soon as possible. It often surprises me that Opposition Members, who are most critical of the present failings of the prison service, appear most resistant to any idea of changing the way in which we run that service. The steps that we are taking will speed up the achievement of the targets that my hon. Friend wants us to set.

Mr. Maclennan: What does the Home Secretary intend to do about young offenders institutions, especially the one at Feltham?

Mr. Clarke: I visited Feltham, where a series of difficult and tragic incidents have taken place in recent years. I was glad to see the progress being made there to get out of those difficulties. The present governor and staff are to be congratulated on raising the morale of the team, introducing innovative ways to deal with offenders and providing more productive regimes. Bullying at Feltham is being tackled and we hope that efforts being put into improvements there will put an end to the problems that have occurred.

Mr. Bowis: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that when I visited Wandsworth prison recently the most impressive aspect had nothing to do with the laundering of Canadian diplomatic mail bags, but was the building works which will make possible single prisoner cells without slopping out? I hope that that work will continue quickly. The education work being done by the prison education service was the second most impressive thing. Will my right hon. and learned Friend keep a close eye on the current changes to the service to ensure that when prisoners have served their sentences they are able to leave prison best equipped to return to the community and the job market?

Mr. Clarke: My right hon. Friend's autumn statement preserved the Government's capital programmes and I am glad to say that, as a result, the prison capital programme was kept well in place. We are making great advances in extending and improving the amount of prison accommodation. I am glad to say that we are on target for ending slopping out and having integral sanitation everywhere by the end of 1994. More than 70 per cent. of prisoners already have such arrangements. I hope that my hon. Friend is assured that the improvements that he saw when he visited Wandsworth prison will be continued in the near future.

Ms. Ruddock: In the light of those replies, does the Home Secretary recall that his chief inspector of prisons, Judge Tumim, reported only three months ago that prisoners were still in overcrowded and disgraceful living conditions with inadequate medical attention? Do I need to remind him that, since then, there have been allegations of drugs and alcohol dealing and the rape of a female staff member of Long Lartin prison, a riot at Reading remand centre, and reports of a gangland culture at Wymott? The Secretary of State must acknowledge that the central recommendations of the Woolf report on reducing overcrowding and providing better education and work facilities for prisoners have not been carried out by the Government and that in that respect the Home Secretary has failed in his duties.

Mr. Clarke: It was this Government who appointed Judge Tumim to be Her Majesty's inspector of prisons and I recently reappointed him precisely so that he could carry on pointing out to the Government and to the public the failings and shortcomings in the prison service. We know that they exist on a wide scale. The conditions that the hon. Lady described still exist in too many of our local prisons and I have been describing how we propose to tackle them. Substantial improvements have been made towards getting Lord Justice Woolf's recommendations in place and we shall continue to make progress. When we have made the necessary changes to speed up progress, I hope that the Opposition will not merely resist them all, defend the status quo, and become frightfully obsessed with the fact that we bring in business men from outside to raise the management culture and improve the running of prisons.

Electoral Law

Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions he has had regarding changes in electoral law; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: We have set up five working groups of Home Office officials and representatives of returning officers and local authorities to look at different aspects of the electoral process.

Mr. Skinner: It is about time, because in the 1992 election the Tories helped themselves by rigging the elections and piling up in marginal seats votes which they got from Johannesburg and the Costa del Sol. They made sure that those votes were put in the right place. Does the Minister agree that Tory supporters were also voting for the infirm and the disabled in residential homes in order to win the election? Why has there been no public inquiry into those malpractices? Will he guarantee that he will support the Bill to be presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) on Friday—appropriately, in a few days' time?

Mr. Lloyd: There is not much truth in any of that rant, as the hon. Gentleman knows. The whole House, including most of the hon. Gentleman's party—not the hon. Gentleman, but the Labour Front Bench and most Labour Members—supported the enfranchisement of British citizens living overseas. Some 30,000 voted, but they could not possibly have affected the outcome of the general election. What made a difference was the piling up of Labour votes in the Labour heartlands and inner cities—when the population had moved out—because the boundary review had been so long delayed.

Mr. Rathbone: Does my hon. Friend accept that the vast majority of people in the country welcomed those reforms to allow more people with interests in this country to vote in elections here? However, another aspect of electoral review which requires immediate attention is election to the European Parliament. Can my hon. Friend throw some light on the review to take place on that front?

Mr. Lloyd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We are urgently considering how to take forward the question of adding six additional seats for the next European elections in 1994. We intend to keep the existing voting system but to have the existing Euro-constituency boundaries independently redrawn.

Mr. Barnes: Does the Minister agree that the biggest problem in electoral law is the people missing from the electoral register? Some 2 million have disappeared from the register since 1987 and many redundant names appear on electoral registers, hiding from view the fact that there are many missing people. What are the Government doing about getting a proper—rolling—electoral register? If they are not doing anything, will they support the principle of the Bill that I shall be introducing in the House on 12 February?

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman asks a rhetorical question—he knows perfectly well what we are doing, as he and I have had discussions on the matter. As I said earlier, five working groups of local authority and Home Office officials are looking at the various issues, including that of the register. As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, the register has always been a problem. The Office of Population Censuses and Surveys is comparing the register with the outcome of the 1991 census.
If the hon. Gentleman casts his mind back to the 1981 census and review he will recall that 6.5 per cent. of people who were eligible to vote were not on the register then and 7 per cent. of names on the register were redundant—the people had died or moved. There is much work to be done by the group, which is why we set it up and intend to consider its recommendations carefully.

Mr. David Evans: Is my hon. Friend aware that we won the general election in 1979? Is he aware that we won it in 1983? Is he aware that we won it in 1987? Is he aware that we won it in 1992? Is he aware that when we won those elections it had nothing to do with electoral reform, but was to do with our policies? Until that lot opposite understand those policies, they will never get re-elected.

Mr. Lloyd: Not for the first time my hon. Friend puts his finger right on it. He is quite right and Opposition Members know that he is right. That is why they come forward with fiddling excuses such as those produced by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).

Mr. Allen: Will the Minister join me in saying that one of the most important functions of his Department is to ensure that all British citizens who are entitled to a vote receive a vote? Does he accept my criticism when I say that it is unacceptable that millions of our fellow citizens are not on the electoral register? Will he make a statement to the House in the near future about proper and adequate funding for electoral registration officers? In particular, will he make a statement about the disabled people who are currently unable to exercise their right to vote even when they have registered? Will he bring forward proposals to put an end to that disgrace?

Mr. Lloyd: All disabled people are entitled to vote. The important factor is that the law requiring local authorities to provide polling stations to which disabled people can gain access is not always applied. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that some local authorities face difficulties with that—he rubs his fingers to indicate that the problem is money. That is why we contribute 50 per cent. of the cost of providing special ramps and help for those people. As the hon. Gentleman knows, if an individual cannot get to a polling station becuase he is disabled, he has a postal vote.

Mr. Burns: Does my hon. Friend accept that the Government, through his Department, make available a great deal of money for advertising voter registration and making it easier for people to register to vote? Does he further accept that far too many people cannot be bothered to make use of those facilities to register their vote? In the past three years, some people have deliberately sought not to register to vote, in the hope that they will avoid having to pay community charge. For that reason, one should not get too upset at the crocodile tears shed by Opposition Members. If people cannot be bothered to register to vote, they get what is coming to them.

Mr. Lloyd: In the last analysis, it must be the individual's responsibility to get his name on the register. The Government have a responsibility to give good advice, assistance and support to electoral registration officers to ensure that those who want to get on to the register, do. We fulfil our responsibility and the study groups aim to ensure that we shall achieve even greater success in future. Electoral registration officers are more effective in the job, which rightly and primarily belongs to them.

Crime (Hampshire)

Mr. Denham: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the increase in recorded crime in Hampshire since 1979.

Mr. Charles Wardle: Since 1979, recorded crime in Hampshire has increased at a rate of 6.6 per cent. a year, which is broadly in line with the rates of increase for England and Wales as a whole.

Mr. Denham: Is not the Minister aware that that means that crime in Hampshire has more than doubled since 1979, but police numbers have been increased by only 10 per cent? Is he aware that crime increased by 14 per cent. in the last year alone, that there were a dozen crimes involving firearms in Southampton over the Christmas period and that crack is now available in Southampton? In the light of that increase in crime, will the Minister explain to the House precisely how he came to decide, against the advice of the police and the police authority and against the demands of local people, that there should be no increase in police numbers in Hampshire next year? Why has the so-called party of law and order become the Government of criminal Britain?

Mr. Wardle: The hon. Gentleman sounds a long alarm. He failed to mention that Opposition Members have voted against every major piece of law and order legislation since 1979. In the year to last June, recorded crime in Southampton increased by 4 per cent., whereas in the previous year it increased by 22 per cent. In the current year, Hampshire police have received 67 more posts. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be asking the Hampshire force to get on with civilianisation so that more uniformed policemen can get out on the beat and combat crime in his constituency.

Mr. David Martin: I agree very much with what my hon. Friend has just said. I wish to raise with him the concern of residents, particularly in Southsea, about disturbances outside licensed premises. Will he co-operate with local authorities, the police force and all others concerned to make sure that, particularly with regard to


licensed premises that open into the small hours of the morning, all possible back-up is given to efforts to do something about the problem?

Mr. Wardle: My hon. Friend is right to express concern about those matters. His concern is shared by the Hampshire force. As he may know, Hampshire police have introduced a clubwatch scheme to deal with violence in clubs and pubs for that very purpose.

Mr. Gunnell: The Minister will be aware that in Leeds yesterday magistrates imposed a—

Madam Speaker: Order. The question relates to crime in Hampshire. The hon. Gentleman must relate what he says to crime in Hampshire and not to Leeds, which I know is dear to his heart.

Mr. Gunnell: I will make the question applicable to all local authorities, Madam Speaker, and therefore to Hampshire.
Is the Minister aware that for the first time in this country a court has imposed a fine on a local authority social services department because of a crime committed by a young person in its care? Will the Minister explain whether—

Madam Speaker: Order. I fear that, although I have given the hon. Gentleman an opportunity to get his question in order, it does not appear that it is directly relevant. We shall have to move on.

Car Crime Prevention Year

Mrs. Currie: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police forces have developed special initiatives as part of Car Crime Prevention Year.

Mr. Jack: All 43 police forces in England and Wales have engaged in some form of activity in connection with Car Crime Prevention Year and I take this opportunity of congratulating them on their contribution to a campaign which in its first quarter has seen a 2.5 per cent. reduction in car crime.

Mrs. Currie: Is the Minister aware that last year Derbyshire showed the highest increase in car crime in the country and that certain industrial estates in my constituency have been used by car rings to process cars stolen from a wide area of the midlands? Will he nevertheless join me in praising the considerable efforts of the Derbyshire police force to tackle this problem, after years of delay and pressure from the local Labour-controlled Derbyshire county council intended to impede their operations, and encourage them to take whatever initiatives they can to counter the current crime wave in Derbyshire?

Mr. Jack: I thank my hon. Friend for her support for the efforts of the Derbyshire police to counter car crime. It is only fair to add that the figures show tremendous potential for further reductions and I hope that the Derbyshire police will contact, for example, those involved in Northumbria Partnership Against Car Theft, which has brought about a substantial reduction in the number of cars stolen and thefts from cars.

Mr. Janner: Is the Minister aware that in Leicestershire, as in most counties, the increase in car crime over the past

few years has turned into a plague? In the light of that, the Government's refusal to allow the police any additional forces in any of the provinces is a shameful way in which to treat ordinary people in all our constituencies.

Mr. Jack: I am sorry that the hon. and learned Gentleman is single-minded enough to think that police numbers provide the solution to car crime. The police would be the first to admit that it was through their partnership with motor manufacturers, motor traders, car owners and ordinary members of the public that a 2.5 per cent. reduction in car crime was delivered in the second quarter of last year. Let me correct the hon. and learned Gentleman: in this financial year alone, we are putting another 1,000 police officers into service.

Second-hand Cars (Security Devices)

Sir Anthony Grant: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps his Department is taking to persuade dealers to fit security devices to second-hand cars.

Mr. Jack: Through the medium of my advisory committee on car crime, I am working closely with the Retail Motor Industry Federation and the Association of Chief Police Officers to encourage the wider adoption of schemes such as Essex Sold Secure and Northumbria Partnership Against Car Theft, which are specifically targeted at improving the security of second-hand cars.

Sir Anthony Grant: That is all very well, but the current level of car crime is a national scandal. Whoever is responsible—ram-raiders, or young idiots misery-riding—something must be done. The answer is to fit cars with immobilisers. A number of inexpensive models are available; I recommended one to the former Home Secretary, but nothing happened. I have one here—it is a very simple model.
Car dealers and manufacturers will do nothing until they are compelled to. It is up to the Home Office to put a stick behind them.

Mr. Jack: There is certainly nothing immobile about my hon. Friend's solution to the problem. When I visited the motor show this year, I was heartened to see that many more cars made by our leading manufacturers were already fitted with immobilisers and alarms as a standard precaution. After all, those cars will ultimately become second-hand cars. I hope that the methods of Northumbria Partnership Against Car Theft—which instructs the public about precautions such as that described by my hon. Friend—will be widely adopted. Such precautions have already contributed to the reduction in car crime.

Ms. Lynne: In the light of the Minister's reply to me on 4 December, will he inform us of the progress of the discussions with our European partners about fitting inbuilt security systems to new motor cars? Will he also include second-hand cars in the European directive, if that is possible?

Mr. Jack: The hon. Lady is right to draw attention to that aspect. Work is in progress, led by the Department of Transport, to try to encourage our European colleagues to adopt higher standards in connection with locks, alarms


and immobilisers. Obviously, the progress that we make today in regard to new cars will affect the second-hand cars of tomorrow.

Voluntary Groups and Charities

Mr. Alan Howarth: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to increase public participation in voluntary groups and charities.

Mr. Jack: The Home Office promotes voluntary activity by supporting bodies whose role is to encourage and extend the work of the voluntary sector to promote volunteering and to provide information, advice and support for other voluntary organisations.

Mr. Howarth: Does my hon. Friend agree that a great many people want to make a contribution to society through voluntary work? Has he any thoughts about the way in which the Government could play a part in establishing networks, neighbourhood by neighbourhood —probably on a fairly informal basis—to help people to find the most worthwhile and practical ways in which to make their personal contributions?

Mr. Jack: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his continuing interest in, and dedication to, the voluntary sector. He asked about local networks and volunteering; we are working with BBC Radio on a £250,000 programme to encourage more individuals to volunteer. We have given a pledge to develop the volunteer centres database more widely, to ensure that people can volunteer and can obtain the necessary information about volunteering. I assure my hon. Friend that that pledge will be high on my list of priorities.

Miss Lestor: While I support what the Minister and his hon. Friend said about involving more people in voluntary work, bearing in mind the disclosure today that a voluntary organisation registered as a charity was employing people who had been accused of offences against children, does not the Minister think that if he is to encourage this he should also vet people before they are allowed to take children away at weekends?

Mr. Jack: I have taken careful note of what the hon. Member says; her experience is considerable. She will know that the Charities Act 1992 does a great deal to strengthen the voluntary sector and the operation of charities and may make its own contribution to the point that she has raised. I will look into the specific case that she mentioned.

Sunday Trading

Mr. Beith: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what review he has made of the operation and enforcement of the Shops Act 1950 over the Sundays preceding Christmas 1992.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: None, Madam.

Mr. Beith: Does the Minister realise that what some large companies are doing by flagrantly breaking the law is attempting to increase their market share at the expense of those companies and small businesses which keep the law? Since the lawbreakers may carry on with the same cavalier attitude, whatever modifications of the law are

agreed by the House, will the Minister and his colleagues start to put their weight behind enforcement of the law, now and in the future?

Mr. Lloyd: As the right hon. Gentleman very well knows, the law is extremely clear on one point, that the responsibility for its enforcement lies with local authorities. He has, however, been rather misleading in his introductory remarks. He knows, as does the whole House, that for many years many small shops have broken the law. It is in the recent past that the large shops have started to do so, which is why my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, in his statement a few weeks ago, made it clear that the Government intend to find a solution to this problem—something which eluded us some years ago when we sought to do so—by introducing a Bill that would enable the House to compare and choose between the major options for reform that are available. That should put behind a new law the authority that the current law so clearly lacks.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Wareing: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 January.

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Wareing: Does the Prime Minister agree that although the action against Saddam Hussein was thoroughly justified, similar military action in the case of Bosnia and Herzegovina could not be so justified? Will he give a categorical assurance that no British service man's life will be put at risk by fighting on one side or the other of that conflict, because such a conflict would lead to a general conflagration in the area? Should not the message from the House now be: remember Sarajevo, 1914?

The Prime Minister: The situation in Bosnia presents special difficulties and is quite different, as the hon. Gentleman said. He will know the action that we have taken: we have imposed an arms embargo, sanctions and a no-fly zone which has been made effective. Progress has been made in the peace talks in Geneva—not enough, but progress has been made—and we will take further measures if we have to. As the hon. Gentleman may know, European Community Foreign Ministers agreed yesterday to work on measures leading to Serbia's total diplomatic isolation. The European Community also agreed on the need for an international criminal court and will support that at the United Nations.

Mr. Pickles: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Pickles: In his busy schedule today, does my right hon. Friend have any plans to commemorate the centenary of the foundation of the Independent Labour party? If so, what advice does he offer as the most appropriate way to mark this event?

The Prime Minister: I did not have it in mind to do so, but perhaps we might hold a wake.

Mr. John Smith: To return to the Prime Minister's actual responsibilities, does the right hon. Gentleman believe that it is right that taxpayers' money should be used to pay the legal fees incurred by a Minister in connection with his own private affairs?

The Prime Minister: It is uncharacteristic of the right hon. and learned Gentleman to deal in innuendo. The matter to which he refers has been dealt with by Sir John Bourn, an independent report has been commissioned and the answer is quite clear: no impropriety occurred.

Mr. Smith: Does not the Prime Minister even understand the distinction between a public duty and a private concern? In this case, is not it clear that the Chancellor instructed solicitors because of his decision to rent his own property to a tenant for his own profit? Is not it clear from the report to which the Prime Minister refers that the Chancellor instructed solicitors without referring the matter to a Government legal adviser? If property was involved, should not the Chancellor be asked to repay the money now?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned Gentleman may wish to reflect on and withdraw those remarks. It is uncharacteristically cheap of him to have raised the matter in this fashion. The report fully exonerates the Treasury on the central questions: was it right to make the payment and were any rules breached? Sir John Bourn, who carried out the inquiry, has no criticism on either point. He also confirms that the Chancellor did not ask for assistance and makes no criticism of my right hon. Friend's actions.

Mr. Smith: Does the Prime Minister understand that it is a matter not of innuendo but of public policy on whether taxpayers' money should be used to finance the private legal affairs of a Minister? If the Prime Minister is resting on the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General, which has not yet been considered by the Public Accounts Committee, will he explain why, as is clear from the report, the whole matter was concealed under a heading called
Expenditure … on economic, financial and related administration",
which included the expenses of pay review bodies and the cost of the BCCI inquiry? Was not there an attempt to hide this matter from the public and from scrutiny here?

The Prime Minister: rose—

Hon. Members: Answer!

Madam Speaker: Order. It is pointless the House shouting "answer"; the Prime Minister is at the Dispatch Box doing just that.

The Prime Minister: It says a great deal about the Leader of the Opposition that, the day after our service men have been in action in Iraq and when we have troops in Bosnia, he has raised this matter in the House. I repeat, as he sits smiling smugly, that the Chancellor did not receive assistance. The Treasury broke no accounting rules and in the absence of the rules it was appropriate that judgment should be exercised by two accounting officers. That has been independently examined. There is no

criticism of that judgment and if he had a shred of self-respect the right hon. and learned Gentleman would withdraw those remarks.

Mr. Butterfill: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Aim Aviation of Bournemouth, which has been so successful in winning export orders in the United States, the far east and Europe that it has had to acquire a new factory at Wallisdown in my constituency? Will he join me in wishing it every success in seeking new orders, which it undoubtedly will be able to do under the policies of the Government?

The Prime Minister: I am happy to do that and I am delighted to hear of this export success. There is no doubt that our exports have been on a rising trend. Equally, there is no doubt that we have the right economic fundamentals to encourage exporting in the future.

Mr. Boyce: What a load of nonsense.

The Prime Minister: It is vital that we do so for our jobs and prosperity. We understand that, even if the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Boyce) understands nothing.

Mr. Livingstone: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Livingstone: Does the Prime Minister accept that the vigour with which the Government have ensured that Iraq complies with the United Nations resolutions is not repeated when ensuring that other nations such as India comply with United Nations resolutions on Kashmir or China with United Nations resolutions on Tibet? Is he aware that, to many people in the world, it seems that we pursue United Nations resolutions wth vigour only when they refer to endangered western oil interests?

The Prime Minister: I think the hon. Gentleman knows better than that. This country has a better record of supporting United Nations resolutions than almost any country that he can name.
In the case of the difficulties with Iraq, there was a clear violation and invasion of a neighbouring country and an attempt to capture both that neighbouring country and probably to move on further down the Gulf. Recently there have been deliberate attempts of genocide both in the north and south of Iraq. The whole of the hon. Gentleman's background suggests that he should be supporting the Government in preventing that genocide.

Mr. Bill Walker: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the Cabinet will shortly be looking at proposals for the future of the naval dockyards. He will be aware of the political sensitivity that applies to both naval dockyards. Will he assure me and the House that the decision, when made, will be based upon equal opportunities for both dockyards and that we will be comparing apples with apples so that there is no question of saying afterwards that the decision was arrived at other than properly and honourably?

The Prime Minister: I can assure my hon. Friend that every relevant factor will be taken into account.

Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Jones: Will the Prime Minister find time today to pass on the condolences of everyone in the House to the family and friends of my constituent, Lance Corporal Edwards, who was killed yesterday bravely delivering aid to Bosnia? Will the Prime Minister tell the House what measures he will be taking to ensure that the troops performing this dangerous role have the firepower and intelligence back-up to prevent further casualties?

The Prime Minister: The whole House will agree with what the hon. Gentleman had to say about his constituent. He was a very brave man and there is no doubt that he gave his life to save the lives of many other people who would have died, but for actions of Lance Corporal Edwards and those of his colleagues.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will be making a statement after questions which will be directly germane to the hon. Gentleman's question.

Mr. David Martin: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Martin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that since he visited St. Mary's hospital in Portsmouth, it, with Queen Alexandra's, has been approved for trust status? Remembering all the virulent criticisms levelled at trust hospitals by the Opposition parties, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he has seen the reports in today's papers that even the official Front-Bench spokesman of the Labour party now sees the sense in our reforms? Is there joy in Downing street over one sinner that repenteth?

The Prime Minister: There is hardly likely to be joy over that particular sinner. But I can certainly confirm to my hon. Friend that I have seen the report. The fact is that the Labour party has no agenda of its own. Conservatism has won the arguments on health and will continue to win them. I well remember what the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) said:
I give this historic pledge that the hospital that serves my constituents will opt out over my dead body.
I hope that the hon. Member does not live to regret that pledge. No doubt if he is ill his local trust hospital will treat him.

Mr. Wigley: Will the Prime Minister find time today to consider the representations that have been made over a number of months by disablement organisations about the need for anti-discrimination legislation? As he once had ministerial responsibility for disabled people and bearing in mind the fact that a Bill has passed through the House of Lords, will the Prime Minister find time for such legislation to go on the statute book in this parliamentary year?

The Prime Minister: This is a technical and difficult matter, as the hon. Gentleman knows as well as anyone in the House, but I will look at the points he raised and discuss them with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security.

Worcester

Mr. Luff: To ask the Prime Minister when he next plans to pay an official visit to Worcester.

The Prime Minister: I am at present making plans for a series of visits to all parts of the country and I hope to include Worcester among them.

Mr. Luff: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if he were to visit Worcester, he would encounter very great admiration for the skills and bravery of our armed forces, both in Bosnia and the Gulf? Is he also aware that he would encounter great local anger at the inability of the Labour-controlled local council to live within its means and at its failed gamble that it would be bailed out by an incoming Labour Government, as a result of which it is resorting to desperate measures to balance the books, including the sale of much-loved public open spaces?

The Prime Minister: I believe that a number of people may well have gambled on a Labour victory at the last election. I am bound to say that it was always likely to be a poor bet. I quite understand the way my hon. Friend feels about the Labour council in Worcester—many people around the country feel the same about other Labour councils. It is the charge payers of Worcester who will have to pick up the bill for the Labour council's actions and I hope that they will remember that when the local council elections come along.

Engagements

Mr. Vaz: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Vaz: The Prime Minister may recall that on 14 March 1991 I met him to discuss the case of my constituent, John Hall, who was dying of leukaemia, an illness which he contracted while serving on Christmas island. He also knows that John Hall subsequently died on 3 June last year in the royal infirmary in Leicester. The House rightly honours those who serve this country. Will the Prime Minister join me and others in honouring the memory and selfless devotion of the British nuclear test veterans and pay them and their families the compensation which they so richly deserve?

The Prime Minister: I certainly join the hon. Gentleman in honouring all our veterans, whether those veterans or others. He will know that the question of compensation and whether it is due for the reasons he set out is being examined at this moment.

Bosnia (Further Deployment)

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): With permission, I should like to make a statement on Bosnia.
On 15 September I announced that we would be participating in the United Nations operation to deliver humanitarian aid in Bosnia. To do this we sent to Bosnia a battalion group consisting of some 2,500 troops. Since November, they have been involved in escorting relief convoys bringing food, shelter and other essentials to Bosnian communities. I am pleased to say that this operation has succeeded in its aims. Our forces have been directly responsible for escorting some 147 convoys which have delivered 11,775 tonnes of aid. It is no exaggeration to say that there are many people in Bosnia today who owe their very survival to the presence of British and other United Nations forces.
At the time of the announcement of this deployment, I made it clear that our paramount concern was for the safety of British troops. This, of course, is still the case. The last few days have seen an increase in the number and seriousness of attacks on our forces. In particular, there has been the shelling of our base at Tomislavgrad, and then the killing of Lance Corporal Edwards in Gornji Vakuf yesterday. A few moments ago the whole House expressed its sorrow at this tragic loss of life, and we wish to pass on our condolences to his family. He was a brave man on a humanitarian mission who gave his life trying to help others.
In order to enhance the safety of our troops, I am authorising the deployment of additional forces to the region. These additional forces will be available, should the need arise, to reinforce our contingent in Bosnia at very short notice. They will be available to provide additional protection to British forces while they are involved in humanitarian operations. They will also be available to cover a withdrawal of British forces if that should become necessary. We are determined not to be in a position where we are unable to respond immediately to a significant deterioration in the situation.
My proposals are as follows. We shall immediately be sending a small number of extra specialist troops to join our contingent in Bosnia. They will include logistics experts and others who will make arrangements for the arrival of a larger force, if that should prove necessary.
At the same time, as a contingency, we shall be deploying to the Adriatic HMS Ark Royal, with a carrier air group consisting of Sea Harriers and Sea King helicopters, accompanied by two frigates and three support ships. A number of other units will be deployed on the carrier group: a light gun battery, a locating battery and a mortar-locating troop, with support. HMS Ark Royal and accompanying ships will be ready to deploy on Sunday and will take up station in the Adriatic. I should emphasise that there are at present no plans to deploy any of the units embarked to Bosnia itself, but we wish to be in a position to do so immediately should the need arise. We shall also be making arrangements for the possible move to the area of other units at short notice.
None of this marks any change in our policy in the area. The forces that I have described will be used to increase the protection we provide for our existing battle group as it carries out its humanitarian role. We believe that the

provision of artillery in particular will enable us to respond to attacks of the kind that we faced at Tomislavgrad. We remain committed to sustaining our participation in the United Nations humanitarian effort if at all possible. These forces will not be used to intervene in the fighting between rival factions in the former Yugoslavia. Our position remains that it is not appropriate to intervene in what is essentially a civil war. Our overriding concern, as always, is to ensure the safety of our forces.

Dr. David Clark: The appalling pictures that we see nightly on our television screens have served to shake many of our fellow citizens. Many of us find it difficult to appreciate how neighbours who have lived amicably side by side for 45 years can now behave like animals towards one another. The Secretary of State is absolutely correct in reminding us that we are indeed witnessing a civil war.
For this reason we were gratified when in September the Government announced in the House their proposal, which the Opposition had advocated, to detach a group of British soldiers to protect the United Nations convoys carrying humanitarian aid to the stricken people in Bosnia. I am glad to have the assurance of the Secretary of State today that the sole purpose of our troops deployed in Bosnia is to provide that humanitarian aid. In that sense, we welcome the statement.
We have argued consistently that our soldiers should have all the necessary armour and the correct rules of engagement to protect themselves. Am I right in assuming that that is precisely what the Secretary of State has announced today? If so, we welcome what he has said.
Yesterday's tragic death of Lance Corporal Edwards brought home to us all the extreme and ultimate dangers involved. I can say unreservedly that we in the Opposition express our deep sympathy to the family and friends of Lance Corporal Edwards. We associate ourselves completely with what the Secretary of State has just said about that young man's valour and effort in bringing succour to those in need in Bosnia.
That tragic incident serves to remind us that our soldiers face dangers from all sides. Can the Secretary of State confirm that the area in which the incident took place is one in which there was fighting between Croats and Muslims? With a view to pointing up the dangers that our soldiers face, can he further confirm the preliminary assessment that the point at which the incident took place was outside the range of Serbian soldiers? Will the Secretary of State confirm also that in Bosnia there are approximately 70,000 Serbian fighters, a similar number of Muslim fighters and 50,000 Croats and that, tragically, all these are potential enemies of United Nations soldiers, who are there trying to assist the civilian population?
Given the reinforcements announced today, can we now be satisfied that there is sufficient helicopter support for our troops on the ground? Why are there no amphibious landing vessels? Is it true that neither HMS Fearless nor HMS Intrepid is seaworthy and, if so, why?
In the middle of his statement the Secretary of State indicated thaat an advance group of specialist troops is to be sent to "make arrangements … for a larger force". That suggests a change in the role of British troops. Is that contingency or strategy?
If we are to deploy extra troops, will other countries do likewise? Has the United States said that it will supply troops? Will any of the conscript armies of our neighbours


be sent to Bosnia? There is a strong feeling that the British cannot themselves provide sufficient soldiers to do the job. It would be helpful if the right hon. and learned Gentleman would give more information on those points.
There is a feeling that we may be drifting inevitably towards a war which could last many years, and there does not seem to be a clear political objective. It all serves to remind us, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman did today—the message was clear from his statement—that a great deal hangs on the efforts of Lord Owen and Cyrus Vance and their peace proposals. We hope and pray that those proposals can be accepted and endorsed and that Karadic will be able to persuade his Parliament to endorse them so that, slowly, some normality can return to the former Yugoslavia.

Mr. Rifkind: I am grateful to the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) for the welcome that he has given to our proposals. He is correct to assume that the purpose of the extra forces is to protect existing British forces in Bosnia-Herzogovina.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the tragic circumstances surrounding the killing yesterday of Lance Corporal Edwards. It took place in Gornji Vakuf, and he is right to say that it arose out of conflict between Croatians and Muslims in that town. There had been tension of that kind for some days. There is no significant Serbian presence in the vicinity. It is believed that the Serbians brought a mortar close to Gornji Vakuf a few days ago, but that was not involved in the incident yesterday which led to Lance Corporal Edwards' death.
The numbers that the hon. Gentleman gave of Serbian, Croatian and Muslim forces in Bosnia-Herzogovina are broadly correct, although obviously they are estimates, and comparable with the figures on which we work.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the use of helicopters. At present, Sea King helicopters are available for casualty evacuation, should that be required. They are based at Split, but could be used if necessary. The proposals that I have announced today would involve a significant number of additional Sea King helicopters on Ark Royal, when that is available in the Adriatic.
The hon. Gentleman asked about amphibious forces. We do not believe that such forces are necessary because, as he will be well aware, Bosnia does not have a coastline and Croatia is co-operating with any deployment that we require to Bosnia. So the need for amphibious forces is not relevant.
I can confirm that no change of role is proposed for the use of British forces in Bosnia. I said that explicitly in my original remarks, and I am happy to repeat it.

Mr. Peter Viggers: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for repeating the assurance that our troops in Bosnia will be used only for the purpose of distributing humanitarian aid. Will he accept that that cannot safely be done if it needs to be supported by air strikes and field artillery? I must tell him, though it grieves me to do so, that if the Cabinet commits further troops for use in Bosnia it will not have the support of many hon. Members on this side of the House.

Mr. Rifkind: There is no suggestion on the part of the Government that it would be appropriate or sensible to contemplate a humanitarian operation which could take

place only through the use of air strikes. That is not part of our thinking; nor is it part of the thinking of the United Nations.
We must envisage the possibility either that at some stage it will be necessary to withdraw our forces, in which case air cover and its early availability would be of considerable benefit, or that an individual incident might arise during the course of the activities of a convoy which could benefit from the early availability of artillery or air support. But I entirely endorse my hon. Friend's view that if it became clear that convoys could proceed only with the constant use of such forces, that would be totally incompatible with the purposes of the United Nations exercise. I am sure that the whole United Nations operation, and not just the British operation, would come to an end in such circumstances.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: I join the Secretary of State in expressing sympathy to the family of Lance Corporal Edwards.
Is it not an inescapable conclusion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's announcement today about reinforcements that, if they are necessary for the protection of our troops now, they were necessary for their protection from the very beginning? Does he agree that, although the primary purpose of the deployments that he has announced is defensive, Bosnian Serbs considering whether to accept the current proposals for a peace settlement would do well to appreciate that those additional military resources can easily be put to other purposes including—if necessary, and at the request of the United Nations—the protection of the Muslim community in Bosnia?

Mr. Rifkind: With regard to the first part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's question, clearly he did not listen as carefully as usual to what I said. I made it clear that we are not deploying the forces into Bosnia at present. They will be available for use if required. We hope that they will not be required and will remain as assets on Ark Royal.
On the second part of the question, it is important to ensure that the purpose of the continuing presence of British forces in Bosnia is to play a humanitarian role. The hon. and learned Gentleman appeared to suggest that he might have sympathy with a substantial extension of the role of British forces, but I believe that any significant extension in the use of ground forces would be fraught with danger. It would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to draw a fine line limiting the kind of involvement that we might then wish to contemplate. Ground forces are there for humanitarian purposes. That is clearly understood and easy to define. To go beyond that category would be to go into difficult waters indeed.

Sir Peter Tapsell: May I tell my right hon. and learned Friend that when I first visited Vietnam there were 600 American advisers in that country, but that when I visited Vietnam for the second time there were 500,000 American troops there? It has seemed certain to me from the moment that the Cheshire Regiment was sent to Bosnia that it would have to be either reinforced or withdrawn. I would strongly oppose any significant increase in the number of British troops on the ground, as would many of my hon. Friends, so I hope that if the present battalion is not safe with its present support my


right hon. and learned Friend will give serious consideration to withdrawing it altogether at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Rifkind: I understand my hon. Friend's concerns, and I think that I can reassure him by saying that today's announcement will mean that about 89 additional personnel will go into Bosnia. Those are the only people who will enter the former Yugoslavia. An additional 300 or so Army personnel will be based on Ark Royal but, as I have said, they will not be deployed in the former Yugoslavia unless they are required either to help supervise a withdrawal of our force or to enhance the safety of our existing force carrying out its existing responsibilities.

Mr. John D. Taylor: Does the Secretary of State realise that many of us feel that his statement is most alarming and shows clearly what we had predicted—that the Government are slowly being sucked into the middle of a civil war? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that many of us are totally opposed to further involvement of British troops on the ground in Bosnia, and that we decry the fact that he is holding two options open—one to support humanitarian efforts and the other to become further involved on the ground? Does he understand that we fully support the humanitarian effort, but that those on the ground involved in what he has described as a civil war perceive the British troops as representatives of a nation which is taking sides in the political argument in Bosnia? That puts our troops at a disadvantage.

Mr. Rifkind: I note what the right hon. Gentleman says, but he should follow the consequences of his own reasoning. He informed the House that he fully supports the humanitarian efforts of our forces. If that is so, he will agree that it is crucial to protect the soldiers carrying out those responsibilities. My statement today was intended solely to enhance the safety of those personnel, so I believe that the right hon. Gentleman should support the proposals that I have announced.

Mr. Andrew Hargreaves: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that, although many of my right hon. and hon. Friends welcome his explanation that the measures are designed to afford further protection to our troops on the ground involved in the difficult humanitarian work, we might take alarm at his remark that those efforts should continue "if at all possible". We hope to have an assurance from him that "if at all possible" will not become "at all costs".

Mr. Rifkind: I agree with the point that my hon. Friend has just made. We believe that the humanitarian operation that the United Nations are carrying out is a worthwhile exercise. It is not simply the British forces but also the French, the Canadian and the Spanish as well as a number of other countries.
It is worth remembering that, so far, the humanitarian operation has succeeded in its objective of getting large amounts of aid to many tens of thousands of men, women and children who have been literally starving over the winter months. Clearly, it is desirable that the project should continue, but not "at all costs".
The criterion that we must apply is the level of risk to those who have been entrusted with responsibility for assisting the convoys. If we or, indeed, the United Nations came to the judgment, it is clear that the operation would cease. That would be right and proper.

Mr. Calum Macdonald: I welcome the additional equipment being provided to the British forces in Bosnia, especially the mortar-locating equipment. Is the Secretary of State aware that when I asked a question on the subject in December 1992 the Minister of State replied that mortar-locating equipment would be of negligible utility in Bosnia because of the terrain? What has changed since December? Does that not indicate a lack of Government planning?

Mr. Rifkind: Mortars have been available to our forces in Bosnia since they were first deployed in November. At present we are examining the number of ways in which we can provide increased security on a contingent basis. It may turn out that that particular facility, like some of the others to which I have referred, may not be necessary. However, we think that it is wiser to have mortars available to be used if required rather than to accept a substantial lapse of time before they can be brought from, for example, the United Kingdom or Germany to Bosnia if they suddenly became useful. It is a useful precaution in the circumstances.

Sir John Wheeler: Can my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that in today's circumstances it is essential for our forces to be supported by the additional back-up if they are to continue to succeed in their humanitarian effort? In the event of the necessity to withdraw our forces, can he confirm that that can be achieved only if there are adequate supporting services to cover their withdrawal in difficult circumstances, with all the armoured vehicles?

Mr. Rifkind: My right hon. Friend is entirely correct. We must envisage that that may become a requirement and that we shall have a duty to ensure within the shortest possible time the successful evacuation not only of all our personnel but of the substantial amounts of equipment available to them in Bosnia. That would be a complicated operation on any basis. It is therefore useful to have available in the Adriatic facilities of the sort which would make the task considerably easier. The fact that such facilities are available at such short notice is a continued boost of confidence for those carrying out the tasks on our behalf.

Mr. Tony Benn: Is the Secretary of State aware that his statement leaves some sense of confusion in the House because we have had many assurances of caution and the repetition of humanitarian objectives? However, the commitment to further forces with an uncertain objective of either protecting or withdrawing leaves the House in some doubt as to the Government's objectives.
As the civil war in the former Yugoslavia has a history going back hundreds of years to the Turkish, Austro-Hungarian and Nazi occupations, and the murder of the Serbs by the Ustashi during the war, the fear being expressed is a proper fear not only for the safety of British troops, which is a prime concern of the House, but that what could follow from the further commitment to forces is an extension of the fighting and the reverse of


humanitarian objectives—namely, that more people will be killed. In the circumstances, would it not be right for the Government to make a clearer statement of their objectives and let us debate and decide whether the House would wish to follow them?

Mr. Rifkind: I am sure that there is benefit in having as wide as possible a debate about the overall objectives of not only British but international and United Nations policy on former Yugoslavia. The Government's objectives for the use of our ground forces are clear and could hardly be clearer: they are to assist in the provision of humanitarian aid and to do so for as long as that aid is required, unless there is an unacceptable level of risk to the safety of the forces in question. That is a clear objective. We have made it abundantly clear—indeed, as clear as possible—that if that level of risk became unacceptably high, or if the humanitarian operation was discontinued, we would have to withdraw our forces in an orderly and safe fashion. We hope that that will not prove necessary for as long as the humanitarian exercise can bring much-needed relief to many hundreds of thousands of people.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that Bosnia is an internationally recognised independent state and that to call the conflict a civil war is a gross and distorting over-simplification? Does he accept that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and others, who have condemned the Serbian aggression, which amounts to genocide—200,000 people have been killed to date—have fairly and firmly pointed out where the blame lies? Will he confirm, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary did in the House yesterday, that if—as we all hope and pray—the Geneva settlement leads to peace, it will be, as my right hon. Friend promised us, an internationally guaranteed peace? Will he confirm that our troops will be able to play a part in, for example, ensuring that all heavy weaponry is taken away from all sides so that Bosnia can become a peaceful, demilitarised country, as its Foreign Minister made plain to Members of Parliament that he wanted when he came here yesterday?

Mr. Rifkind: The Government are clear that the Government in Belgrade bear a significant and heavy responsibility. That is why we fully support the actions of the United Nations in imposing economic sanctions and other measures with respect to that Government. However, we are also conscious that the fighting within Bosnia is, sadly, being carried out by Bosnian Serbs, Bosnian Croats and Bosnian Muslims. It is in that sense that I refer to the conflict as having many of the characteristics of a civil war.
We naturally hope that the present diplomatic efforts will lead to a successful resolution of some of the problems. If they do, and if there is a proper and effective ceasefire in Bosnia, clearly the United Nations will wish to give thought to what contribution it can make towards helping with that ceasefire. But clearly that is something for the future. At this stage we must hope that a ceasefire comes into existence. Until now that objective has not been realised.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Do Ministers recollect the dire warnings of Julian Amery and others that the deterrent to Stalin's armies devised by Tito was the

training of whole generations in guerrilla warfare? These are extremely tough, determined and skilled people. In those circumstances, what is meant exactly by "risk unacceptably high"? It seems to some of us that we withdraw only in circumstances where it becomes too rough for us. May I ask the rather nasty question whether it will be as easy to get out as it has been from the north of Ireland?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman's last point was an invalid comparison. Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom. We have a responsibility to give protection and assistance to a part of our own territory and to our own citizens for as long as that is required. There is no comparable obligation with regard to our presence in Bosnia or, indeed, any other country around the world.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman's assessment of the ability of the inhabitants of Bosnia of all backgrounds to indulge in guerrilla war. We are conscious that these are tough people who have a strong tradition of fighting skills. That is clearly a factor that we must all take into account. It is the view of the United Nations, and a view with which we agree, that countries such as ours have an obligation to give humanitarian aid so long as that can be done without unacceptable risk to our forces. I accept that it is difficult to define that term with the precision that we might all like. We have seen since our forces first entered Bosnia that, fortunately—until the tragic events of yesterday—our troops were able to carry out their responsibilities without undue consequences. That was to be welcomed, but it is possible that it may be changing. We hope that it will not, but it is precisely because it could be changing that it is helpful and sensible to have additional forces available in the Adriatic if they should be required for the purposes that I have described.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: In accepting my right hon. and learned Friend's assurances today, and on many occasions in the House, that it is not the Government's intention to alter the role of British forces in Bosnia, and while I understand that it is only prudent that they should have back-up facilities to enable them to make an orderly and safe withdrawal should the situation deteriorate, may I ask him to say a little more about the 90 or so troops with special qualifications who are to be landed in Bosnia?

Mr. Rifkind: The 89 personnel that we are proposing to deploy in Bosnia during the next few days consist of liaison officers, logisticians, tactical forward air controllers and some personnel who will be involved with observation responsibilities. There are a number of troops with responsibilities of that kind. Although they add up to a relatively small number, they will be able to supplement the existing personnel if future action of the type that I have described should be required.

Mr. Harry Barnes: To what extent will the extension of our activities in Bosnia be under the United Nations command structure and in conformity with United Nations resolutions? To the extent that that is so, will those activities not be different from the activities in Iraq which were described last night?

Mr. Rifkind: The bulk of the people that we are sending to the area will be deployed on Ark Royal in international waters and, for the time being, will remain under purely


British command and control. Naturally, it will be desirable for the situation regarding any troops within Bosnia to be regularised in the normal way, but, as I said earlier, we hope that it will not be necessary to deploy additional personnel in significant numbers to Bosnia. So long as they are on Ark Royal, it is appropriate for them to remain entirely under British command.

Sir Dudley Smith: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the majority of people will agree with his view that, however horrific the circumstances on the ground, we should not be drawn into someone else's civil war? Is he aware, however, that since the end of last summer the Western European Union has strongly advocated an effective embargo and blockade of the participants in this ghastly affair? Does he not think that that is one of the avenues that we might explore further in an endeavour to achieve peace?

Mr. Rifkind: We are prepared to consider all constructive suggestions and I am aware of the important contribution that my hon. Friend has made, through WEU, to discussions on the issues. This is an ongoing situation and any constructive proposals are well worth examining.

Mr. Ieun Wyn Jones: On behalf of my party, I express our sympathy for the family of the young Welsh soldier who was killed delivering humanitarian aid to Bosnia. We welcome any steps taken to protect troops who deliver that aid. May I challenge the Secretary of State, as he was challenged from his own side, about his definition of the conflict as a "civil war"? Does he not recognise that the conflict is clearly part of a campaign for the creation of a greater Serbia, part of a plan which started with the annexation of land in Croatia, and that unless it is stopped in Bosnia it may well escalate to Kosovo? When will the United Kingdom accept that there is international concern about this? Is it not time that the

United Nations recognised that concern by taking steps to prevent escalation of the conflict, should the peace process falter?

Mr. Rifkind: The conflict has some of the characteristics to which the hon. Gentleman referred—I do not dispute that fact for one moment—but I think that he would be equally willing to accept that the Croatians have been seeking to control as much territory as possible in Bosnia—including territory which would not normally come under their control—and I have no doubt that the Bosnian Muslims, given the opportiunity, would also be seeking to do so. I have therefore said—it is a reasonable comment to make—that the conflict in Bosnia has many of the characteristics of a civil war, although I accept that that is not the end of the story. There is substantial external involvement and the Government have made it clear that they believe that the primary external responsibility must lie with the Government in Belgrade.

Mr. David Faber: I, too, welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's reiteration that there will be no change in the role of our troops in Bosnia and, furthermore, that we shall continue to do all that we can to be perceived as utterly neutral to all sides of the conflict in what is undoubtedly a civil war. Can my right hon. and learned Friend comment on the efficiency of the British troops on the ground at present, especially those in and around Vitez? Is he happy that they face none of the internal logistic and administrative problems that so plague the UNPROFOR troops in and around Sarajevo?

Mr. Rifkind: The efficiency of our forces is of a high order. At a much earlier stage in consideration of those matters we were concerned about the command and control arrangements envisaged by the United Nations for the operation in Bosnia. Subsequently, however, the present headquarters were set up with General Morillon as their commander and Brigadier Cordy-Simpson from the United Kingdom as the second in command. That has led to a much more efficient operation and I believe that the British forces and the command and control structures under which they operate are now working effectively.

Press Self-Regulation (Review)

The Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Peter Brooke): With permission, I should like to make a statement about press regulation and privacy.
On 9 July last year, my predecessor as Secretary of State for National Heritage, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor), announced that he had invited Sir David Calcutt QC, the master of Magdalene college, Cambridge, to undertake an assessment of the effectiveness of press self-regulation under the Press Complaints Commission and to give his views on whether the present arrangments for self-regulation should be modified or put on a statutory basis. Sir David was also asked to consider whether further measures might be needed to deal with intrusions into personal privacy by the press.
I have received Sir David's review and am publishing it today. A final response must await the debate that the House will have on the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), and the report of the Select Committee on National Heritage. But the House will wish to have a clear statement of the Government's initial response.
Sir David's overall conclusion is that press self-regulation under the Press Complaints Commission has not been effective and that the press would not now be willing to make the changes that would be needed to make the commission the truly independent body, commanding the confidence of the public as well as the press, that it should be. He therefore recommends that the Government should now introduce a statutory complaints tribunal on the model of that described in the 1990 report of the committee on privacy and related matters—the so-called privacy committee, which Sir David chaired. The tribunal would have wide-ranging powers, including the power to restrain publication of material in breach of its code of practice and the ability to require the printing of apologies, corrections and replies, to award compensation, impose fines and award costs.
As regards intrusions into personal privacy by the press, Sir David makes five further recommendations. The first and most significant recommendation is that the three criminal offences proposed by the privacy committee to deal with specific forms of physical intrusion should, with modifications, now be enacted, together with a civil remedy designed among other things to enable action to be taken to restrain publication. Hon. Members will recall that the offences were designed to cover the obtaining of personal information, with a view to publication, through intrusion on private property, the use of surveillance devices, photographs and recordings. A range of defences would be available, including a new one that the act was done for the purpose of informing the public about matters directly affecting the discharge of any public function of the individual concerned.
Sir David does not recommend the immediate introduction of a tort of infringement of privacy, but he does recommend that the Government should give further consideration to its introduction.
Sir David's other recommendations in relation to privacy are that further consideration should be given by the Government to the extent to which the Data Protection Act 1984 may contain provisions which are

relevant for the purpose of misrepresentation or intrusion into personal privacy by the press; the Government should give effect to the remainder of the reporting restrictions proposed by the privacy committee; the Government should give further consideration to the law relating to the interception of telecommunications with a view to identifying all significant gaps—relating to the protection of private telephone conversations—and to determining whether any further legislation is needed.
The Government are most grateful to Sir David for the careful and thorough review that he has produced of what is an exceptionally difficult and controversial subject. We welcome the review as significantly moving forward the public debate on the future of press self-regulation and on the wider question of safeguarding personal privacy.
I shall deal first with Sir David's recommendations concerning privacy. The Government accept the case for new criminal offences to deal with specified types of physical intrusion and covert surveillance. Measures on those lines are now necessary to signal society's strong condemnation of such behaviour and to deter similar instances in future. Subject to further examination of the details of the proposed offences, and to consultations with practitioners in criminal justice and civil law, the Government will bring forward legislation in due course to give effect to the proposals in England and Wales. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will consider whether corresponding changes need to be made to Scots law, given the wider scope of the common law of Scotland.
The Government also accept Sir David's recommendation that further consideration should be given to the introduction of a new tort of infringement of privacy. We recognise, as Sir David does, that that cannot sensibly be confined to the press, and will have to take full account of a wide range of human and technological activity. We also accept the need to examine the extent to which the Data Protection Act may contain provisions that are relevant for purposes of misrepresentation or intrusion into personal privacy by the press. We will, in addition, give further consideration to the legislation on the non-identification of minors and others and to the legislation covering interception of telecommunications, as recommended by Sir David.
I turn now to Sir David's recommendation that the Government should introduce a statutory regime for dealing with complaints against the press. That raises separate, and more difficult, issues which need to be carefully weighed. The Government agree with Sir David that the Press Complaints Commission, as at present constituted, is not an effective regulator of the press. It is not truly independent and its procedures are deficient. Sir David's detailed analysis of those shortcomings is compelling. We also recognise the strength of the case that he makes in his report for a statutory tribunal with wide-ranging powers. At the same time, we are conscious that action to make such a body statutory would be a step of some constitutional significance, departing from the traditional approach to press regulation in this country. In the light of those considerations, the Government would be extremely reluctant to pursue that route. A most persuasive case for statutory regulation would need to be made out.
In coming to a final view, we shall want to take account of the debate surrounding the private Member's Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Hammersmith on


freedom and responsibility of the press, which is down for Second Reading on 29 January. On the basis of my statement today, the Government will advise the House that, although we have not announced our final conclusions regarding a statutory regime, we cannot support the Bill.
The Government will also take account of the inquiry into privacy and media intrusion which the Select Committee on National Heritage has set in train, the report of which is, I believe, expected in February. We shall look forward to receiving the report as a further significant contribution to the public debate on those issues. We shall also wish to take into account any response that the press might make to Sir David's detailed criticisms of the Press Complaints Commission. We shall thereafter announce our conclusions.
In the Government's view, for the reasons cogently set out by Sir David Calcutt, self-regulation under the Press Complaints Commission, as at present constituted, is not satisfactory. The Government accept the case for reform. I have announced a number of major steps to tackle the issue of privacy, and, in the light of what I have said about statutory regulation, we invite further public debate on the nature of the reform that needs to be undertaken.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: We are pleased that the Government have decided to bring forward the report's publication, although we have grave reservations about a number of its recommendations. The extent of rumour and speculation about its contents during the past few days have served to confuse, not clarify, the debate. Indeed, the report has to be considered against a background of establishment intrigue involving the royal family and their advisers, Ministers, press barons and Lord McGregor, the chairman of the Press Complaints Commission, who have all made fools of themselves and each other. As some of the Ministers' colleagues are involved, will he give us his views on this, since he appears to be somewhat reluctant to refer to it?
The Opposition agree with a number of things that were said in both the report and the Minister's statement about the way in which some sections of the press have conducted themselves in the past few years. The excesses of journalism, especially the callous exploitation of private grief, bring the whole journalistic profession into disrepute. I am sure that no one on either side of the House would wish to condone such excesses, which have little to do with legitimate investigative journalism.
The report in many respects misses the central issues involved in questions of press freedom. It says nothing about access to public information through the introduction of a freedom of information Act. Nor does it say anything about a right of reply for citizens whose lives are wrecked through the publication of gross inaccuracies about their private lives or their business affairs.
The report also has nothing to say about the concentration of press ownership in so few hands. Can the Minister assure the House today that any Government legislation in regard to Calcutt will include proposals for a freedom of information Act and for a right of reply for ordinary citizens to correct factual errors about themselves in the press? What does the Minister intend to do about the

concentration of press ownership? Is he prepared to tell us today that he will refer it to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission?
I note that the Minister said that he will not support the Bill that is to be introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley). Does he recognise that his announcement throws grave doubts on the concerns that he has expressed today about the rights of the individual and the need for reform?
Calcutt's recommendation of a statutory tribunal with legal powers to fine offending newspapers and to dictate official versions of the truth for them to publish is clearly not the answer. The press will not be improved by censors appointed by the Government. In no circumstances will the Labour party support legislation that prevents proper scrutiny of the lives of the rich and powerful, including public figures such as politicians, business tycoons and members of the royal family.
The second main area covered in the Calcutt report concerns the enactment of three new criminal offences in England and Wales to prevent invasions of privacy. We are sympathetic to the view that the ordinary citizen should be protected against the more grotesque invasions of privacy. The report has come down hard on the practices of electronic bugging and using long-lens cameras. We will want, however, to study in greater detail the specific privacy measures recommended in the report.
Finally, the central failing of the Calcutt report, in our view, is its attempt to deal with matters of press regulation in isolation from broader questions of press freedom. The Labour party believes that not only the Government but the press, which responds to any attempt to change the law with hysteria, have a lot more thinking to do on this complex issue.

Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the welcome that she gave the report's publication. She made a passing and oblique reference to colleagues of mine in the Government. Her language was somewhat delphic. Let me simply say that the events to which I think she referred—as I have said, her language was opaque—occurred before Sir David was invited to conduct the report. He was invited to conduct it in a manner that had been strongly foreshadowed at the beginning of the 18 months of self-regulation.
The hon. Lady was good enough to give us her agenda, as against the agenda that Sir David was set in his terms of reference. Some of the omissions that she mentioned can scarcely be laid at his door, as they did not fall within those terms of reference. Although her question about concentration of ownership, for example, is an entirely proper subject for discussion in the House, I do not think that it falls within the purview of the report, in the particular circumstances. I cannot forecast whether specific legisation will be introduced; nor can I make any commitments in relation to a freedom of information Act.
The hon. Lady asked about the hon. Member for Hammersmith's Bill. That Bill would establish an independent press authority and an absolute right to corrections of factual errors appearing in the press. It certainly covers some of the ground that would be covered by the press complaints tribunal proposed by Sir David, but Sir David's review raised a number of wider issues. The Government believe that it would be better to address


those issues in the round, which was my reason for saying that I could not ask the House to support the hon. Gentleman's Bill.
In regard to the statutory tribunal, the hon. Lady adopted the asseverative technique that she has used on other occasions. She asserted that it was important that the powerful should not be protected. Throughout the report, Sir David made it clear that he did not envisage the protection of the powerful, given the existence of reasons connected with the public interest—which he carefully defined—that would justify alternative action.
The hon. Lady concluded by saying that Sir David had sought to deal with press regulation in isolation from questions concerned with press freedom. She will recall that Sir David said specifically in the report that he thought that it would be a mistake for the Press Complaints Commission to deal with both subjects at the same time: in his view, the issue of self-regulation is separate from that of press freedom. I am sure, however, that the hon. Lady's support for press freedom will be echoed on both sides of the House.

Sir Peter Hordern: The measures proposed by my right hon. Friend to combat the invasion of privacy are very welcome—and, perhaps, long overdue. Does he agree, however—in regard to the establishment of the press—that, however detestable the conduct of some editors may be, the right to freedom of speech is a precious right which we have upheld for centuries? Surely, however much we may resent what members of the press have to say, we should all defend to the last their right to say it.

Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the welcome that he has given the Government's action. Of course I recognise—as I did in the answer that I gave the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd)—the overriding issue on the right to freedom of speech, but my right hon. Friend himself welcomed the fact that our proposals dealt with questions relating to intrusion into privacy.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Does the Secretary of State accept that in most countries the privacy of the citizen and the freedom of the press are protected by fundamental constitutional law? The absence of such arrangements in this country has given rise to the need for a piecemeal approach to the law's amendment that has been adopted by Calcutt.
Does the Secretary of State also accept that, whereas certain measures to tighten up the law on physical intrusion and covert surveillance may be acceptable, many people will regard the freedom of the press to act as at least a point of criticism of an over-mighty, over-centralised and over-secretive Government that we have under our constitutional arrangements in this country should not be checked by a statutory body appointed by the Government?
Will the Secretary of State recognise that if the Government will give the citizens of this country the right to invoke the provisions of the European convention on human rights in our own courts, most of the problems that he and his predecessors have had to deal with will go away?

Mr. Brooke: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. Sir David himself makes the point in his report, when referring to legislation that applies in other countries, that the history, culture, tastes and

constitutional arrangements in other lands do not necessarily travel readily and easily across borders and that this must be taken into account when examining particular legislation that one would like to introduce here.
The hon. Gentleman paid an eloquent tribute to the freedom of the press which I am sure many other hon. Members on both sides of the House would echo, but there is a responsibility on the part of the press also to make sure that that freedom can be upheld.

Mr. Roger Gale: I welcome the measured response of my right hon. Friend to the report and, in particular, to proposals for a press tribunal which I believe would be probably unworkable and certainly undesirable in a free society. Does my right hon. Friend agree that journalists should be neither flattered nor persecuted by being treated differently from any other United Kingdom citizen and that what is needed is a criminal justice Bill that would control electronic eavesdropping, intrusion into private property and intrusion by long-lens cameras in a way that would apply to every citizen in the land?

Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comment. The essence of the proposals that Sir David brings forward is that they are not specifically and uniquely addressed to journalists; they are addressed to anyone who would be engaged in those activities with a view to publication.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: May I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his courteous reference to the Select Committee and for his readiness to await the outcome of the inquiry that we are conducting before he arrives at final conclusions?
A free society requires a proper balance between the essential freedom of the press and the freedom of private individuals from harassing intrusion from media whom, in the normal course of events, they would never encounter except as readers, listeners and viewers. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with me that any reforms ought to be directed principally to the protection not of public figures, whether in the palaces of Westminster or Buckingham, but of innocent people such as the victims of crime and their families and the bereaved families of service men killed in action?

Mr. Brooke: I thank the right hon. Gentleman very much for the kind remarks with which he began his question.
In the context of the proper balance that he described, I would not wish to press the right hon. Gentleman, but if that is a trailer for the report that the Select Committee will bring forward, I think that many in the House will welcome the balance that he describes. In the context of the concentration and emphasis to which he made reference, he is right about the concern to make sure that everyone's home is his castle in which they can be secure and where they should not be interfered with. Sir David makes clear in his report that, where he makes reference to the potential for a defence relating to the public interest, it would need specifically to be related to the particular job that the individual was doing and, therefore, the relevance of the information to the discharge of that job.

Sir Anthony Grant: I welcome what my right hon. Friend said about measures to prevent intrusion into privacy, especially that most


odious practice of pestering those who are suffering from personal and family grief. On the broader issue, does he recall Sir Winston Churchill's saying that parliamentary democracy was a most incompetent system but every other system was infinitely worse? Will he say, therefore, that no matter how odious or detestable a free press seems, every other system is infinitely worse?

Mr. Brooke: I thank my hon. Friend not only for his concentration on those who are in a grief-stricken state but for the tribute that he paid to the freedom of the press and its importance to our constitutional arrangements.

Mr. Clive Soley: I welcome the report as a part of the continuing, long-overdue debate on press freedom and responsibility and I thank the Minister for his interest in the committee that I set up to inform the progress of my Bill. The argument about the freedom of the press would be stronger if we had an Act protecting freedom of information or freedom of the press. If he introduced a privacy Bill, which, frankly, in the present climate I would not support, he would be introducing a Bill in a country which is almost alone among the western democracies in not having the counterbalance of press freedom legislation. That is why I would not support it in the present climate.
Perhaps we should start from fundamental principles. I hold the view that a citizen in a democracy has a right to expect news to be reported accurately in papers that claim to be newspapers. The Minister will know that the bulk of complaints that have been made to the Press Complaints Commission, to me and to others have been about accuracy. Inaccurate news reporting tends to lead to the further abuses that were brought to my committee's attention. The right hon. Gentleman seems to have had his mind made up for him, but if he listens carefully on 29 January I may be able to persuade him that the balance between press freedom and press responsibility requires a finely drawn Bill that addresses the need for explicit legislation protecting the freedom of the press or freedom of information before we go down the privacy road.

Mr. Brooke: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the tone in which he put his question. He has indicated his reservations about supporting legislation that we might introduce, and I have already made my position clear. The right of reply is dealt with in Sir David's recommendations for a statutory tribunal. I have said that the Government welcome continuing debate on reform, and perhaps the right of reply should be considered in that debate, despite my reaction to his Bill.

Mr. John Gorst: As a member of the Select Committee, I urge my right hon. Friend, in reaching a final conclusion, to be guided by one principle—that the balance between the rights of the individual to privacy and the freedom of the press should be neither prejudiced nor subjugated out of balance? The decisive factor should be the public interest, but neither should be favoured or prejudiced.

Mr. Brooke: The terms in which my hon. Friend framed his question suggests that the trailer that I suggested the Chairman of the Select Committee gave us earlier will be reflected in the views of Conservative members of the Committee. I emphasised earlier that Sir David has

identified and added the public interest defence in his report. I should not be surprised, therefore, if it is identified by the Select Committee.

Mr. Joe Ashton: Is the Secretary of State aware that one of the problems with the present system is that the Press Complaints Commission gives only an apology? There is nothing between that and going to court for libel and risking incurring costs of £100,000. There must be something in between. Why cannot he introduce a set-up like an unfair dismissal tribunal or the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, whereby a rape victim or a bereaved person who had been grievously abused by the press could make a complaint and be awarded, say, £5,000 or £10,000?
Why is it that we can have a Police Complaints Authority, which is totally independent, local government ombudsmen and health service ombudsmen—and the legal services ombudsmen, because the Solicitors Complaints Bureau was not doing its job? There are plenty of independent semi-statutory bodies which do a very good informal job and that is what is needed, instead of, on the one hand, a vested interest complaints commission and, on the other, lawyers making fat fees and taking great risks on other people's money in the libel courts.

Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue and I am grateful to him for having done so. The criminal offences that Sir David identifies also carry with them the opportunity for civil action. I indicated that the Government would be taking away for examination the proposals for criminal offences, but the hon. Gentleman is quite right in identifying the fact that a central consideration for the Government must be how the private individual can receive efficient and economical redress if it should be available to him.

Mr. Tim Renton: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his determination to marry a wish to protect the private citizen's right to privacy with the rights of a free but responsible press. My questions follow on very much from the remarks of the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton). Does my right hon. Friend envisage legal aid being available for this new civil action for intrusion of privacy? If not, is there not a real danger that, as with libel, this new tort will be of interest only to the rich and not to the ordinary citizen?
Following from that, before my right hon. Friend reaches his final decision, will he consider going back to the Press Complaints Commission and suggesting that it should reinforce itself, not only with more independent members, but with the power agreed by the industry to fine heavily those proprietors and editors who break their own code of conduct? The aim would still be to make self-regulation work.

Mr. Brooke: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's reinforcement of the question of the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton). I was saying that we would need to look at a variety of ways in which that objective could be secured. I think that the hon. Member for Bassetlaw was envisaging some form of summary proceedings. It would be wrong for me, when we have not got into the examination of the preparation of any legislation, to be definitive at this stage, but I can reassert the principle and spirit of what we will be seeking to achieve.
As to what my right hon. Friend says about the Press Complaints Commission, Sir David Calcutt enumerates on page 42 of his report what he regards as 12 deficiencies in the working of the commission. I express a personal view, but I should be surprised if, during the debate in advance of the Select Committee's report, the press did not address themselves to those 12 deficiencies which Sir David mentions.

Ms. Clare Short: Will the Secretary of State tell us a little more about his thinking? He says that he accepts Sir David Calcutt's conclusion that the Press Complaints Commission is not working properly. My experience is that it makes rulings but creates no precedents and the press just go on misbehaving in exactly the same way. The press do not comply with their own code. That code is constantly breached and nothing is done. In that sense it does not work. The alternative seems to be some kind of tribunal, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) has said, with some capacity to fine or punish so that it can enforce regulations set up by the press themselves, or giving power for the press to complain to the commission themselves.
Will the Secretary of State tell us what he is thinking? He ruled out a statutory tribunal but said that the Press Complaints Commission is not working. What is the position in between that he has in his mind?

Mr. Brooke: The precise words I used were that the Government would be extremely reluctant and that one would need to have a very persuasive case made out in order to introduce a statutory tribunal. Lord Waddington, who was Home Secretary when the privacy committee originally reported, used the phrase "statutory underpinning" so there is a potential for an instrument that might respond to the concerns of the hon. Member for Bassetlaw. It is too early to be decisive with regard to a report which we received only four or five days ago. It would be sensible for the debate to take place as a whole.

Sir Giles Shaw: We warmly welcome the way in which my right hon. Friend is treating Sir David Calcutt's report, and I fully endorse some of the comments made by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton). However, does he accept that there are two speeds? Surely, the public expect fairly rapid action to deal with the intrusiveness of bugging devices, telephonic communication and long-lens cameras but, in the longer term, they expect a final solution to what sort of press complaints commission can be established. Will he ensure that the former problem is dealt with urgently?

Mr. Brooke: The issue of criminal offences clearly involves Departments other than mine, but I assure my hon. Friend that the Government will proceed with all speed. It would be wrong to disguise the fact that these are complicated matters and we must ensure that they are properly studied before we introduce legislation which may not command respect if it is inadequate for the complexity involved.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Secretary of State aware that there is no such thing as a free press, as most of it is owned by a clique of millionaires? Does he accept that the Calcutt committee was set up when we had had a Tory Government for 10 years or more and when the press, ironically, were prying into some aspects of the

establishment? As for the royal family, it is now apparent that the press were not doing the prying but that factions at the palace had been giving reports to the press to print. As for bugging and telephoto lenses, it is fairly certain that MI5 and GCHQ have been involved. What protection will there be from MI5 and other institutions? As the statement protects the high and mighty, the privileged and the establishment but not the under-privileged, it wants chucking in the political dustbin.

Mr. Brooke: I shall respond to the hon. Gentleman's three questions. He said that there was no such thing as a free press. I say only that the vehemence with which the issue has been examined in every editorial in the land—in every national, regional and local newspaper—in the past five days suggests that the press believes that there is something worth protecting in its present arrangements.
The answer to the hon. Gentleman's second question is that when Sir David was invited to make his one-man report, which the Government have published today, he did so as a follow-on to the earlier privacy report. The timing of any other event is, in a sense, irrelevant because he was merely reporting at the end of the 18-month period.
On the hon. Gentleman's technicolour observations about MI5 and GCHQ, I give the House a categorical assurance that the heads of the agencies involved have said that there is no truth in the rumours whose only—

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: You are not supposed to say that—you have set a precedent.

Madam Speaker: Order.

Mr. Brooke: If I have set a precedent, I have done so inadvertently, but, in the eyes of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), I appear to have acquired individual excellence. To return to the question asked by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), the only evidence as to why those rumours began was that the technical difficulties were beyond any other organisation—but, unfortunately, the technical difficulties are not beyond any other organisation.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, notwithstanding the very high-minded opinion that the press has of itself as the fourth estate of the realm and as almost untouchable, newspapers are, at root, businesses and interested in making a profit? Although they purvey useful stuff—facts, good comment and even entertainment—they are not above the equivalent of mixing chalk with the flour, which is what they often purvey. In doing so, they are deceiving the public and selling their customers short. It is not true that every other business must run according to rules that protect people from such practices and that the press should not be above such regulation? Therefore, will he not allow himself or the House to be intimidated by the barrage of self-justification and bullying which we have seen in the press in the past five days?

Mr. Brooke: In response to an earlier question, I said that there were responsibilities on the press and everyone else to ensure that the tradition of the freedom of the press, which we revere in this country, could be maintained.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Does the Secretary of State not understand that, in any system of accountability, the idea of new torts does not exist for the vast majority of people and that the courts are too


expensive for people to obtain redress? Libel action involves costs of thousands of pounds, if not hundreds of thousands of pounds, which automatically place it out of the ambit of ordinary people. Legal aid is not available for libel or slander, in any case. Does the Secretary of State accept that there should be a much better way to provide people with cheap, easy and informal access? Does he also accept that the press will never be properly accountable as long as the present ownership structure is retained? The Calcutt report does not deal with that problem, but the Secretary of State must do so because the press is owned by a tiny group of people, mostly Tory sympathisers, who erode the general standards of conduct in political life by supporting the Tory party with propaganda and money.

Mr. Brooke: I have already tried to respond to the issue of redress for the ordinary citizen when answering the hon. Member for Bassetlaw and my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton). I tried to convey the fact that the Government will be considering the issue very seriously. I have already said that, although I agree that ownership is a wholly appropriate matter for debate in the House, it does not arise specifically from the Calcutt report.

Mr. David Harris: As someone with a journalistic background who has been absolutely disgusted by some of the antics of the tabloid press in recent years, I welcome my right hon. Friend's sensible approach. However, will he make it absolutely clear that, in adopting that approach and not accepting—at least straight away—some of the recommendations of the Calcutt report, he has in no way been pressurised by the, at times, crude and hysterical campaign mounted in the past few days by certain sections of the press? Does he agree that the press would be very unwise if it did not set about putting its own house in order on some aspects which are manifestly wrong?

Mr. Brooke: We are all aware of debates in the House to which people come with a particular attitude but find that that attitude changes as a result of the nature of the debate. I am sure that some hon. Members will have felt that the manner in which the press has argued its case in the past five days has not necessarily served its best interests.

Mr. David Trimble: We agree with Calcutt and the Secretary of State that self-regulation of the press has failed. Does the Secretary of State agree that any form of self-regulation cannot be improved and will not work in the future, in view of the highly competitive nature of the press? Does he also agree that the answer is not state regulation? We endorse the Government's general approach of trying to make effective civil and criminal rights and responsibilities. It is important that civil remedies are effective and, in that respect, I endorse what the Secretary of State said about legal aid and other matters.
On the question of privacy, I appreciate what the Secretary of State said about different legal cultures on the continent, but I hope that that does not blind him to the fact that things are done better there and that we might learn from that example.
With regard to obligations—

Madam Speaker: Order. In the past 20 minutes hon. Members appear to have felt that we are engaging in a debate rather than in a series of questions arising from a statement. I am very anxious to call all Members who want to be called, but I shall not be able to do so if each Member puts many or long questions. I hope that during the few remaining minutes that I intend to allow for this subject Members will be very brief.

Mr. Trimble: I have just one more question to put to the Secretary of State. Does he agree that we should be concerned with regulation not only of the press but of other media and other persons? May I remind him of my Adjournment debate in December, in which I raised matters pertaining to television? Is he in a position to comment on that matter?

Madam Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State.

Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his questions and for the way in which he has supported the general thrust of Government action. We have spent much time talking about freedom of the press and about the length of that tradition in this land. Given the fact that the hon. Gentleman is a lawyer, I remind the House of what Sir Edward Coke said at the beginning of the 17th century: that the house of everybody is, to him, as his castle and fortress. That should be borne in mind in the protection of people's rights.

Sir John Wheeler: May I assure my right hon. Friend that his cautious and essentially pragmatic statement will be broadly welcomed but also ask him not to hasten to bring forward legislation in respect of what, after all, is a most complicated issue? Instead, he should listen to the debate with great care and consider how a more independent press complaints commission might be established, perhaps with the right to impose penalties, as has been suggested. If there is to be any kind of control, will my right hon. Friend look to the civil courts for the remedy, rather than to the criminal courts, as the lesser burden of proof is acceptable to the former?

Mr. Brooke: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for his general support for what we are doing. I shall certainly look carefully at the propositions in his final sentence.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: As it is of paramount importance that any changes should ensure that all citizens are equal before the law, will the Secretary of State undertake to explore with the Home Office and the Scottish Office the issue of access to legal aid for civil actions? This, I believe, has been denied since time immemorial. Does the Secretary of State have any idea when the public debate will be concluded? Are we to anticipate a White Paper or immediate legislation thereafter?

Mr. Brooke: I do not think that I would be doing wrong to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland if I were to say that I think that he will be guided by the same considerations as influenced my answers to certain other questions about legal access. With regard to the timetable, I have indicated that the Government certainly will not respond or reach conclusions until the Select Committee has reported. The normal practice is that,


following publication of a Select Committee report, the Government publish a White Paper and provide the opportunity for a parliamentary debate on it.

Mr. Michael Ancram: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, under our unwritten constitution, a healthy democracy depends on a press that is not only free but investigative, challenging and, indeed, disrespectful? While accepting and welcoming the specific proposals to control physical intrusion of privacy, may I ask my right hon. Friend for an assurance that the Government will not pursue measures that might throw out the democratic baby of press freedom with the scurrilous bath water?

Mr. Brooke: I think that my hon. Friend will be reassured by the list of defences that would be available in respect of the offences that he is recommending, whose general concept the Government have accepted.

Mr. Geoffrey Hoon: By accepting the overwhelming arguments in favour of the creation of new criminal offences and, indeed, a new tort to protect privacy—though not the tool of a statutory tribunal—the Government are presumably saying that these matters should be dealt with by the regular courts, both civil and criminal. Once those new offences and new tort become part of our law, it will be alleged either that a journalist has committed the criminal offence or that a newspaper had breached the civil tort. Does it not follow that the Government are really saying that it is better to have such matters dealt with in the regular courts, given the sensitive and delicate issues that will arise, rather than by a statutory tribunal? All issues about state regulation arise equally well in relation to the courts as they would in relation to a statutory tribunal, but we would lose the expertise that a statutory tribunal would develop.

Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman makes a relevant point. It will be well worth making it in the debates that we shall be having, and to which I look forward, in the next few months.

Mr. Alan Howard: As he seeks balanced remedies for the problems that undoubtedly exist, may I ask my right hon. Friend to think deeply before concluding that the resources of self-regulation are exhausted, because I believe that there is scope for strengthening them? Will he also indeed consider extending the protection that the law affords private citizens, possibly by way of a tort of harassment? That might more precisely address the problems with which we should be most concerned, in a manner preferable to a more generalised law of privacy. Will he also think open-mindedly about the possibility of some countervailing strengthening of press freedoms, including freedom of information legislation?

Mr. Brooke: In relation to the strengthening of self-regulation, I should perhaps have added when answering my right hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) that I imagine that the press will have noted the opinion poll by one of its members which showed that there was a significant majority in the country in favour of a statutory tribunal, which suggests that the manner in which the Press Complaints Commission has so far operated does not enjoy public confidence.
The answer to my hon. Friend's question about harassment is that I infer that there is a possibility that the Select Committee will include a reference to that issue when it reports, and I look forward to reading what it says about that.
My hon. Friend will be aware, on the issue of countervailing freedoms, of the commitments that the Conservative party entered into in its election manifesto on the subject of openness of government.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: As this is the slippery slope to state meddling with the press, may I consign the report, if not to the Bolsover dustbin, at least to the recycling plant to make up for all the trees that it took to print it?
It is not true, in the constituency experience of some of us, that people resent intrusion into grief. Often, grief-stricken families like some interest to be taken in them.
I rise particularly to ask if the common law of Scotland can be left alone. As the right hon. Gentleman said at the outset, the common law of Scotland is a bit different. For heaven's sake, leave us out of it.

Mr. Brooke: It would not be right for me to answer on behalf of the Secretary of State for Scotland, whose attention I shall draw to the hon. Gentleman's comments.
I stress—it is in Sir David's report—that large numbers of private individuals—one need only examine the index to the report—have written to complain to Sir David about the manner in which they have been treated. If one confronts a person in one's kitchen and that person says that he is there to represent the public interest, it is a little hard on the individual whose kitchen has been invaded.

Mr. David Sumberg: I warmly welcome what my right hon. Friend said about bugging devices, but I urge him to move with great caution down the statutory route. The job of the free press is the same as our job here, which is to expose what should be exposed. Although we may not like what is sometimes revealed, and although the press may not behave in a proper manner, we do not always behave in a proper manner. To inhibit the freedom of the press would do great damage to the democracy which we all value.

Mr. Brooke: Just as I stressed the aspect of Sir David's concern about the private individual, so I should draw the attention of the House to the fact that Sir David specifically ruled out any kind of exclusion zone being built around those in public life.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: Will the Secretary of State reflect on the simple observation that the criticisms of the media in recent times have almost exclusively been criticisms of the print rather than of the broadcast media? Is he aware that every test of public opinion shows that the public believe the news and current affairs reporting of the broadcasting media far more than they believe what they read in the newspapers?
While newspapers are subject to a self-regulatory system, broadcasters are subject to a democratically controlled regulatory system. Despite that, the broadcasters have proved time and again to have been outstanding in the pursuit of investigative journalism.
Will the right hon. Gentleman reflect again on his attitude to the Freedom and Responsibility of the Press Bill which is to be introduced by my hon. Friend the


Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley)? That measure would do no more than any broadcaster or investigative reporter would acknowledge: it would allow people a statutory right to have errors of fact corrected. I see a complete contradiction in the right hon. Gentleman's position.

Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman raises the subject of broadcasters, as does Sir David in his report, in terms of whether all the media should be subjected to the same law and controls. As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, at present there is a distinction in the manner in which they are controlled. He makes a valuable point when he says that television news journalists are widely respected and, as he points out, are subject to two statutory controls. That issue should be weighed and measured in the debates that we shall be having.

Mr. Stephen Day: Will my right hon. Friend please steer clear of legislation affecting the press? Does he agree that there is a danger that, in trying to protect the privacy of individuals—in sometimes justifiable circumstances—we could be in danger of restricting the press invading privacy when it should sometimes be invaded, such as in the Maxwell and Barlow Clowes cases? At a time when the establishment is hardly held in high esteem, it would not be easy politically for any Government to sell any control on the press, however justified and well intentioned, to the British public.

Mr. Brooke: The problem—it has been identified by several hon. Members—is that, as Sir David says, self-regulation is not satisfactory as at present constituted, so we have an unsatisfactory position. But I assure my

hon. Friend that the issue of the late Robert Maxwell and investigation of him would be a perfectly proper defence in terms of the criminal offences which I described.

Mr. David Nicholson: I welcome what my right hon. Friend said about the public interest being the determining factor in conflicts between the rights of individuals' privacy and the freedom of the press. Will he confirm, as I think he just has, that there is no legislation that he would recommend—I think none would pass through the House—that would inhibit the press in inquiring into matters of legitimate public concern such as thalidomide or 'Spycatcher" or arms to Iraq-type matters, and that allegations to that effect by certain editors rather betray the weakness of their case?

Mr. Brooke: In his report, Sir David has added two further defences to the three already available in the recommendations of the privacy committee.

Mr. Roger Evans: Will my right hon. Friend explain why, when breaking the law, a journalist should be entitled to plead the defence of national interest? Surely the tradition of Sir Edward Coke, to which my right hon. Friend referred, means that if one besets Headington hall, trespasses on its lawns or electronically surveys what its occupants do, one should suffer the consequences. We should reject the alien concept of privacy. It is all very well to talk about foreign examples, but the French republic is a classic example of where the law of privacy inhibits the prosecution of corrupt politicians.

Mr. Brooke: I assure my hon. Friend, as I have sought to assure the House, that the defences that will exist under the criminal offences cover a wide variety of crime if the information was being sought with a view to publication.

Business of the House

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): With permission, Madam Speaker, I will make a statement about the business for next week. The business will be as follows:

MONDAY 18 JANUARY—Progress in Committee on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, fifth day.
TUESDAY 19 JANUARY—Progress in Committee on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, sixth day.
WEDNESDAY 18 JANUARY—Progress in Committee on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, seventh day.
THURSDAY 21 JANUARY—Debate on the Royal Air Force on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 22 JANUARY—Private Member' Bills
MONDAY 25 JANUARY—Second Reading of the National Lottery etc Bill.

The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committee B will meet on Wednesday 20 January at 10.30 am to consider European Community document 5248/92 relating to footwear labelling.

[Wednesday 20 January
European Standing Committee B
Relevant European Community document
5248/92 Footwear Labelling
Relevant Report of the European Legislation Committee HC 79-i (1992–93)]

Mrs. Margaret Beckett: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that statement.
May we have an assurance that there will be a further statement on Monday about the position in Iraq, when I presume a proper assessment will be available of the position there? Is he aware that it would not be acceptable to Opposition Members to see the debate on the RAF which is scheduled for Thursday as a vehicle for discussing that or other foreign affairs matters such as Bosnia? Thursday's debate stands on its own merits and we expect other Government time to be made available for other matters.
I press the right hon. Gentleman to schedule an early debate in Government time on the issue of care in the community. Recent events such as the Silcock case have fuelled existing concern about that important area of policy. There is much interest on both sides of the House as we approach the shift of responsibility from Government to local authorities for that policy area.
Can the Leader of the House give an indication of the likely date of the Budget, since, apart from that being of interest to hon. Members, we shall want a debate on the most important recent report of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee. As that will in part contribute to the atmosphere and framework of the debate on the Budget, it would be helpful to have that before the Budget itself.

Mr. Newton: On the hon. Lady's question about a further statement on Iraq, she will know that, as my right hon. and learned Friend said last night, we shall keep the House informed of the likely effects of the operation. He said that it would be some time before we could describe with certainty the detailed consequences, so I shall not

make a commitment about a statement at a particular time, but I shall make sure that he is aware of the hon. Lady's request.
I recognise that the debate next week will be concerned with defence matters, specifically in relation to the RAF in terms of what I announced. But that will, I think, permit a quite wide-ranging debate—subject always to the decisions of the Chair—and it may be for the interest of the House that on this occasion the Secretary of State for Defence will speak in the debate, in view of recent developments.
The hon. Lady's next question was about a debate on care in the community. I acknowledge the importance of that subject and the widespread interest in it, in view of the impending changes, as well as the recent case to which she referred and a number of other issues. I am afraid that I cannot undertake to find time for a debate next week, or possibly for some little time, but I note the hon. Lady's request.
Finally, I was rather hoping that the hon. Lady would ask me about the Budget, because I have a little information to communicate. I am pleased to be able to tell the hon. Lady and the whole House that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer intends to open his Budget statement on Tuesday 16 March.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the amount of business now before the House often prevents us from leaving the confines of the Palace of Westminster. Many new Members, and, I am sure, some who are not new, are blood donors. Will my right hon. Friend consider providing an opportunity for a blood donation wagon to come to the Palace?
I have a further brief question, too, if I may.

Madam Speaker: No, no. I said earlier this afternoon that I wanted to hear one question from one Member. Furthermore, the hon. Gentleman's question was hardly a matter for the Leader of the House. For all that, the right hon. Gentleman may like to say something about it, and we shall then move on.

Mr. Newton: I am tempted to make a remark about the amount of blood on the Floor, Madam Speaker, but I note my hon. Friend's interesting request. Blood donation is certainly an important service, but, as you kindly said, it is not a matter for me. Nevertheless, I shall ensure that the point is drawn to the attention of the appropriate people.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Will the Leader of the House confirm that a statutory instrument will be required to give effect to the recent cuts in hill livestock compensatory allowances? As the cuts are causing great concern throughout the upland areas of the United Kingdom, will the right hon. Gentleman use his good offices to ensure that there is a debate on the Floor of the House on that important issue?

Mr. Newton: I acknowledge the views expressed by the hon. Gentleman. I would wish to look into the exact parliamentary procedures required—but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will at least acknowledge that hill farm incomes have been rising.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I am sure that the Leader of the House is aware of the serious and deteriorating security situation in Northern Ireland. I have


been told that that matter cannot be debated in the Northern Ireland Committee, but only on the Floor of the House. In view of the gruesome murders taking place on both sides of the political divide, will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that he will give us time next week to discuss something that affects the lives and well-being of the people in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Newton: I am afraid that I cannot give precisely the commitment that the hon. Gentleman seeks, but I draw his attention to the fact—of which he is no doubt already aware—that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will be here to answer oral questions next Thursday.

Mr. Michael Connarty: Will the Leader of the House be able to find time for the President of the Board of Trade to discuss the rules governing receivership that were used in the termination of Lilley Group plc in Scotland—and especially the procedures whereby viable subsidiaries of that company which were trading profitably were also put into receivership? It will be noticed that, in early-day motion 1141, many hon. Members express concern about the procedures.
[That this House is deeply concerned at the cynical decision of the Clydesdale Bank, owned by the Bank of Australia, to call in the receivers on the Lilley Group plc and the subsequent actions of the receivers Price Waterhouse in ending the trading of financially healthy subsidiaries of the Lilley Group; notes that the receivers are now stating to companies who are owed money for works carried out for MDW, a Glasgow-based construction subsidiary, that debts outstanding of almost £16 million have been transferred to Lilley Group plc, who will be unlikely to make these payments because the majority of assets will be used to pay the banks; further notes that the subsidiaries, if sold, will not be liable to pay the debts owed to contractors for work done, which in turn will lead to substantial job losses and financial hardship for sub-contracting firms such as Fir-Side Joinery of Falkirk who are owed £200,000 by MDW for work already completed; and calls on the Department of Trade and Industry to introduce regulations to safeguard the rights of viable companies in such circumstances.]
I am sure that many hon. Members will have had similar experiences in their constituencies. Viable subcontractors find that outstanding debts are not paid, as happened in the case of Fir-Side Joinery, in Falkirk. Honest hardworking subcontractors see the money coming in for the work that they have done going to the receiver, and they never get a penny of it. Today and tomorrow, the Lilley subsidiaries will be relaunched and sold, and the people who take over will not be liable for debts owed for work done.
Is it not time for a discussion on the rules, to find out whether we can protect hard-working companies which have done the work and should receive the money?

Mr. Newton: As on the previous question, I cannot give exactly the promise that the hon. Gentleman seeks, but I draw his attention to the fact that the President of the Board of Trade will be here next Wednesday. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be able to work a question in then.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: Will my right hon. Friend ask the Home Secretary to make a statement next week in connection with the tragic death of

Donna Cooper, a much loved 13-year-old schoolgirl who was killed by a stolen car driven, I understand, by someone out on bail? Such matters, involving the mindless taking of a car, affect lives, families and communities in the constituencies of hon. Members on both sides of the House. The subject deserves a statement, so that we can find out what else can be done to help in such circumstances.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Newton: It is clear from the reaction of the House that all hon. Members on both sides of the House would like to join in the expression of sympathy that my hon. Friend offered to the family involved. I shall certainly bring his request to the attention of the Home Secretary. As my hon. Friend will know, the Government have already taken steps to increase the penalties for joyriding, and are now examining some of the problems connected with offences committed by people on bail.

Ms. Ann Coffey: Will the Leader of the House set time aside next week for an attempt to clarify the procedures for relatives of Bosnian refugees who wish to obtain visas? I ask that question because of a particular difficulty that has arisen for the Bosnian families in Stockport. At present, the onus of responsibility to go to the nearest embassy lies with the applicant. As the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate, Bosnia is not an easy country to cross. A 17-year-old boy, the son of one of the families—

Madam Speaker: Order. May I give the hon. Lady a little guidance? She should at this stage not go into detail, but simply give a broad outline of what is required and why she seeks a debate next week. If she wishes to pursue an individual case, I am sure that the appropriate Minister would be prepared to consider it.

Ms. Coffey: I apologise, Madam Speaker. I was giving the reasons why I wanted a debate next week. The problem arose from a particular difficulty in my constituency involving a 17-year-old boy who was required to cross the country to reach an embassy. I wondered whether the United Nations and the Red Cross could take more of an enabling role in helping applicants to get visas.

Mr. Newton: You and I both understand, Madam Speaker, why the hon. Lady raised that matter, and we respect her reasons. The right thing for me to do is to draw her concern to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

Sir Teddy Taylor: As the Leader of the House is allowing three full days of discussion on the treaty of European union next week, and as the issues are so deeply felt that it may be necessary for the debate to go further into the following week, will he have a word with the Chairman of Ways and Means to establish whether there is any possibility of discussing at an earlier stage the two amendments concerning a referendum? There is a widespread feeling in the House that, if a referendum were approved, the business of the House concerning the Bill on European union would be dealt with very quickly instead of very slowly.

Mr. Newton: First, I confirm my hon. Friend's prediction that it is possible that further time will need to


be made available for the European Communities (Amendment) Bill. As for the rest, my hon. Friend will realise that that is not a matter for me. I hesitate to suggest that that is not a matter for the Chairman of Ways and Means, when he is here, because that sounds like a point of order. Nevertheless, I must steer him in that direction.

Ms. Tessa Jowell: Will the Leader of the House ensure that time is provided next week for the Secretary of State for Health to make a statement on the indictment of the Government's commercialisation of health care provided today by the British Medical Association, which describes
a breakdown of many hospital services, leading to a two-tier provision of service as between those patients of fundholding and non-fundholding GPs, which is totally unacceptable."?

Mr. Newton: I cannot undertake that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will make a statement on that matter next week. I have not had a chance to study what the hon. Lady says the BMA says, but the words she used do not bear much relationship to my experience or understanding of what is happening. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend will find other ways of commenting on the subject.

Mr. Roger Knapman: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday next week we shall be dealing with the Committee stage of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill? Is it the custom of the House that, in Committee, either hon. Members provide their names to the Chairman of Ways and Means or they are not called?

Madam Speaker: Order. May I give a little more guidance? Hon. Members are inclined—as in this case—to ask procedural questions, which are a matter for the Chairman of Ways and Means, not for the Leader of the House. We should not ask the Leader of the House to come to the Dispatch Box and answer questions on matters which are not his responsibility. I call Mr. Jones.

Mr. Barry Jones: When will the President of the Board of Trade come to the House to make his statement regarding the assisted area map of Britain? There is apprehension in my constituency with 3,000 people out of work and the possible loss of a valuable status. Bearing in mind Wales's contribution in coal and steel, and with its massive unemployment at present, it would be wrong for any Welsh area to lose such a status. I should like the hon. Gentleman to tell the Cabinet about those matters.

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will know that my right hon. Friend is examining a number of issues at present. I cannot give him a definite date on which the assisted areas review will come forward, although I will ensure that my right hon. Friend is aware that the question has been asked, if only because it might well be asked again next Wednesday.

Mr. Warren Hawksley: During the Prime Minister's Question Time on Tuesday, the Prime Minister announced that he had asked the Home Secretary to examine the question of juvenile offenders, and said that he was hoping to come forward quickly with proposals. Is it possible for the House to have a debate in the near future on this important issue, so that we can feed in the views of the House?

Mr. Newton: Again, I cannot promise an early debate. However, I can certainly confirm that my right hon. and learned Friend is examining urgently and critically the existing arrangements to deal with juvenile offenders in order to decide what measures, if any, it would be sensible to introduce.

Mrs. Irene Adams: Given the number of calls for a public inquiry into the death of my constituent, Thomas Adleigh, who died in the early hours of Christmas morning while waiting a prolonged period for an ambulance, will the Leader of the House find time next week for the Secretary of State for Scotland to make a statement on the reduction of overnight ambulance cover in the Argyll and Clyde health board area?

Mr. Newton: As with the hon. Member for Stockport (Ms. Coffey), the appropriate course is for me to bring that question to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Bill Walker: Can my right hon. Friend find an early opportunity to debate early-day motion 1154 on emergency services in Tayside?
[That this House notes that during the recent spell of adverse weather throughout Tayside, the police and other emergency services have carried out their humanitarian tasks with great skill and courage; further notes that Tayside Regional Council, Perth and Kinross District Council and Angus District Council have opened up council buildings as emergency shelters for stranded lorry drivers and motorists; congratulates the officers and men of 45 Royal Marine Commando, who, using their skis and Arctic experience, rescued many stranded civilians; and further congratulates the crews of the RAF search and rescue helicopter flight of RAF Leuchars for the vast number of emergency sorties completed in conditions of gales and below freezing temperatures.]
My right hon. Friend will be aware that, even today, many major roads in Tayside are still blocked and communities are isolated. He will be aware of the problems that the people in Tayside will face when the search and rescue flight is no longer available at Leuchars and when 45 Royal Marine Commando is not at its base at Condor. The skiing and Arctic ability of the commandos have saved many people's lives.

Mr. Newton: It is becoming clear that the follow-up period to these business questions will keep my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland fairly busy. I will bring that question to his attention.

Ms. Jean Corston: I refer the Leader of the House to early-day motion 1162 on today's Order Paper on the subject of legal aid.
[That this House agrees that justice for all can only be a reality when there is provision for access to justice for all irrespective of wealth; notes that the intention of the Legal Aid and Advice Act 1949 was to ensure that no one was to be denied legal advice and representation because of inadequate finance; is appalled that the Lord Chancellor, as part of a Government purporting to espouse citizen's rights, proposes to restrict free legal aid only to those on income support or the equivalent, thereby excluding 12 million people from the legal aid provisions; and calls on the Government to abandon these proposals.]
It calls attention to the Lord Chancellor's proposals to change the eligibility rules for legal aid, the effect of which will be to deny free legal aid to 12 million people. That


could prevent women from taking out domestic violence injunctions, or parents from making applications under the Children Act. Will the Leader of the House make time for the House to debate that important matter?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Lady is right to say that the Lord Chancellor has announced proposals and will shortly be tabling regulations to bring changes into effect. Those regulations will undoubtedly give rise to debate. I simply make the point that nearly half of all households will remain financially eligible for legal aid.

Mr. John Greenway: I support the calls today from my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and others for an early debate on crime and law and order, and especially the police service. The Leader of the House will know that, throughout the Christmas/New Year recess, barely a day went by without news of some catastrophe involving youngsters and crime. It is time that the House had a proper debate on the matter.

Mr. Newton: I note the point made by my hon. Friend, which follows the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills. My hon. Friend will know that the Home Secretary is examining a number of matters that arise from the concerns expressed by hon. Members. I cannot add to what I said a moment ago.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: Will the Leader of the House change his mind about having a debate on the national health service and the crisis that has arisen in almost every part of the service as a result of the introduction of the internal market? May I be helpful to the Leader of the House and pre-empt any remarks that he might make about Labour making a U-turn? I was at the press conference yesterday, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) did not say that we supported the trusts. But we desperately need a debate.

Mr. Newton: I did not have it in mind to make any aggressive remarks in response to the hon. Lady's question. However, it remains the case that, in addition to what I said to the hon. Member for Dulwich (Ms. Jowell) a while ago, I am not in a position to promise a debate next week.

Mr. David Shaw: My right hon. Friend will be aware that many customs clearance agents and freight forwarders in Dover have recently been made redundant as a result of the introduction of the single European market. Can he confirm that there will be an early opportunity to debate the efficiency and effectiveness of the Department of Trade and Industry in dispersing the British share of the 24 million ecu that the European Community has announced is available to assist customs agents and freight forwarders? There is anxiety in my constituency that, unless the procedures for dispersing that money are speeded up and made more efficient, it will not filter down to them.

Mr. Newton: I appreciate the reasons why my hon. Friend has raised that point. Indeed, I appreciate the assiduity with which he has pursued the matter on behalf of his constituents over a long period. He too might like to

be reminded that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, to whom he referred, will be here to answer oral questions on Wednesday.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Members' interests.

Mr. Newton: I am afraid that I cannot add this week to what I have told the hon. Gentleman on previous occasions. Having had some discussions with the Chairman of the Committee, I am examining ways to proceed.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Has the Leader of the House been approached by the Prime Minister about making a statement next week in the light of press reports on the future governance of Scotland? If he has not, may I suggest that he encourages the Prime Minister to speak to the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) and other hon. Members who have had experience of devolved government and are interested in Scotland and the Union, bearing in mind that we are known as the Ulster Scots or, as our American cousins call us, the Scotch-Irish?

Mr. Newton: I will draw the hon. Gentleman's kind and undoubtedly well-meant offer to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

Mr. Ray Powell: When the Leader of the House was compiling the business for next week and came to Thursday, did he observe that it was passing strange that Thursdays in the past few months have been heavy days on which all Members were expected to turn up? On Thursday of next week, the business is a debate on the Air Force, which does not normally arouse a great deal of interest among Members, although I realise its importance. Therefore, will he try to disprove the sinister suggestions that have been put to me, that the reason why such a debate was chosen was to distract Members from coming in on Friday for the debate on my Shops (Amendment) Bill? I thank him if those sinister remarks are wrong. I have known him and the work that he does for some time, and I suggest that he allowed a light Thursday so that Members will have time to study the booklet that they received from me this morning explaining the difficulties of introducing a shops Bill.

Mr. Newton: I had not expected the hon. Gentleman to join the conspiracy theorists who are normally to be found on the other side of the Gangway. I assure him that nothing more was in my mind than the ambitions presented to the House by my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) about Fridays. Contrary to what the hon. Gentleman says, since the House resumed in the autumn, the pattern has been of light days, in the sense in which he uses the word. There have been few heavy Thursdays.

Mr. Terry Lewis: The Lord President will recall that a few weeks ago I raised the issue of pornography on the telephone, following the rape of a young girl in Hillingdon. He referred me to the Department of National Heritage—which surprised me—and I was referred back to the Department of Trade and Industry. Since then, I have had a debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill, in which the response from the


hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) was unhelpful. Next Tuesday, I have a ten-minute Bill which has all-party support.
Will the Lord President now or very soon add some weight to the need to regulate pornography on the telephone? I understand that he has two daughters, as do other right hon. Members on the Treasury Bench. I ask them please to consider what I have been saying for a long time, which is attracting all-party support. For that reason alone, will he do something about what is happening on the telephone, which I believe is corrupting and not very wholesome for a civilised country to accept?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that I have two daughters. I also have two stepdaughters. I have no direct or indirect experience of the problem that he describes through them, but I am conscious of the importance that he attaches to the matter and of the sympathy that many people have for his views. I cannot make an absolute commitment, but I will do my best to be here next week to listen to his speech on the subject.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Welsh Grand Committee has not met since last February? Since February, thousands of jobs have been lost in my constituency and those of other Opposition Members. It appears that all representations to the Secretary of State for Wales are failing. Therefore, will the Leader of the House place on the Order Paper next week the appropriate motion to establish the Welsh Grand Committee to discuss the growing unemployment problems of Wales?

Mr. Newton: I cannot give the undertaking that the hon. Gentleman seeks, but I shall certainly bring his suggestion to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

Mr. Jim Marshall: Is the Leader of the House aware that the Government's proposal to reduce expenditure under section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966 is likely adversely to affect the educational opportunities and life chances of many children of ethnic minority background in my constituency and those of many other hon. Members? If he is aware of that, will he please urge the Home Secretary to make a statement as soon as possible? If he cannot do that, will he arrange a debate on that important subject as a matter of urgency?

Mr. Newton: Again, I cannot promise exactly what the hon. Gentleman seeks, but I shall bring his concern to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.

Mr. David Winnick: Is it possible to have an early debate on the recommendations of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, the most important of which is that the security services should be subject to full parliamentary scrutiny? Any such scrutiny committee should not be composed of Privy Councillors alone, hence my early-day motion 1089.
[That this House is strongly of the opinion that the security services should be subject to Parliamentary scrutiny; and moreover is opposed to a committee composed only of privy counsellors being established, which would be outside the normal Select Committee structure.]
Bearing in mind the allegations that have been made about the security services in the latest controversy involving the royal couple, is it not essential that, as in other democracies, the security service be subject to parliamentary scrutiny as early as possible? When can we have an early debate?

Mr. Newton: I cannot promise the early debate that the hon. Gentleman seeks; nor can I add to what was said by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage half an hour ago on the question to which the hon. Gentleman adverted. Obviously the report of the Select Committee, like all Select Committee reports, will be carefully studied.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the Leader of the House accept that we need a statement next week on the national health service, even if, after repeated pressing from my hon. Friends, he cannot manage a debate? A two-tier system is developing. I have in my hand a letter from the chief executive of the Bradford hospital trust which says:
I hope and would expect that preference will be given"—

Madam Speaker: Order. I have had to call several hon. Members to order today for developing their points rather than stating the principle of why they want a debate. The hon. Gentleman is a good parliamentarian and he knows what I am getting at.

Mr. Cryer: One sentence, Madam Speaker. The chief executive of the national health service trust in Bradford is urging consultants to give preference to GP fund holders. That is a serious departure from all the pledges which the Government have given, and that is why we need a statement.

Mr. Newton: I have commented twice on similar questions about the national health service, and I shall not add to what I said earlier.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 1150?
[That this House congratulates the I.L.P. on its 100th anniversary, recognising that the Independent Labour Party held its inaugural conference in Bradford on 13th and 14th January 1893 and that its tradition is continued today by its direct successor organisation, Independent Labour Publications, which has maintained the I.L.P. historic initials and continues to work for the advance and development of democratic socialism.]
That motion contains the simple but powerful initials "ILP". It is about the formation of the Independent Labour party 100 years ago today in Bradford—an organisation which still exists as Independent Labour Publications. A debate on that topic would allow a general discussion on political issues, including democratic socialism, which is still very much alive. For example, Keir Hardie, who was a founder member of the ILP, was known as the Member for the unemployed in the House. We need many Members for the unemployed. We could discuss unemployment during a discussion on the early-day motion.

Hon. Members: Yes—grant it.

Mr. Newton: I am being urged by my right hon. and hon. Friends to grant the hon. Gentleman's request.


However, I cannot add to the generous offer of my right hon. Friend to provide time for a wake. Nor, indeed, can I identify the undertaker.

Ms. Liz Lynne: Following the answer which the Leader of the House gave to the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), although he said that he could not make available any time next week for a debate on community care, will he make time in the foreseeable future before April for such a debate? He should do so especially in the light of the report by the Association of Directors of Social Services that social services throughout Britain are having to cut their budgets.

Mr. Newton: I repeat what I said to the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett): I am not in a position to promise a debate, but I shall bear in mind the request given the longer time scale given by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms. Lynne). The ADSS provides a survey of social services expenditure every year at this time, and it is not unknown for it to make gloomy predictions. It must be recognised that funding to local authorities for social services is to be increased by 15 per cent. next year. That comes on top of a real increase of almost two thirds in local authority social services spending since 1979.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: May I remind the Leader of the House of the implied and repeated promise to Members of the House of Commons that we would have an opportunity to debate the six documents on rail privatisation which the Secretary of State for Transport promised would be available before the publication of the privatisation Bill? Those six documents have not yet been received. As Members anticipate that, before the Leader of the House makes his next business statement, the Bill will have been published, will he use his good offices, first, to ensure that the six outstanding documents are made available to the House of Commons, especially the one on the pricing regime for Railtrack, which is crucial and central to the legislation, before the Bill is published; and, secondly, that we have an opportunity to debate the documents before Second Reading?
Finally, with regard to the Second Reading—

Madam Speaker: Order. I call the Leader of the House.

Mr. Newton: We have just had—I accept that it was thanks to Her Majesty's Opposition—a full day's debate on rail privatisation. It is to the credit of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport that he is

making so much information so openly available in advance of Second Reading. It seems to me that the right way to respond to that is to treat that information as relevant to the debate which we shall undoubtedly have on the Bill.

Mr. Paul Tyler: Following the reply by the Leader of the House to my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) about hill livestock compensatory allowances, may I invite him to be a little more forthcoming? If, as seems likely, the Select Committee on Agriculture will consider that issue as a matter of urgency, can he give us an undertaking that the House will be given the opportunity to study and debate its report fully?
On the right hon. Gentleman's comment that the incomes of sheep farmers are said to have risen in recent years, I wonder whether he has noted the report of the west country sheep farmer who said that 50 per cent. of bugger all is still bugger all.

Mr. Newton: I do not know that I would want to validate that language from the Dispatch Box, quite apart from the implication of the remark. Nor shall I add to what I told his hon. Friend, beyond saying that any report produced by a Select Committee will be studied carefully by my right hon. Friends.

Mr. Mike Gapes: Will the Leader of the House consult his colleagues, the Secretaries of State for Defence and for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, about providing time for a debate on the implications of the second strategic arms reduction treaty and on the question of nuclear proliferation for this country? That debate is necessary in view of the present debate in the Ukraine, which is likely to continue.
The Ukrainian Government might sabotage the whole process, because Members of its Parliament are opposed to the fact that this country, among others, is not giving the Ukraine any guarantees that, if it gets rids of its nuclear weapons, we will not fire such weapons against them. Could the Government find time to debate that issue, so that the Ukraine could be given a negative security guarantee of that type?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will recall that I have already announced in the business for next week a debate on defence-related matters, under the heading of the Royal Air Force. Despite the obvious importance of the matter to which he has referred, I cannot promise another debate at this stage.

Points of Order

Sir Peter Hordern: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. During Prime Minister's Question Time this afternoon, in your hearing, the Leader of the Opposition launched a strong personal attack on my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Is it not one of the oldest conventions in the House that, if a right hon. or hon. Member is going to name another right hon. or hon. Member, he first gives him or her notice to that effect privately?
I have established with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the Leader of the Opposition gave him no such notice. In view of that fact, will you rule on this matter and confirm that that is a convention of the House and that the Leader of the Opposition ought to come to the Dispatch Box and apologise to my right hon. Friend?

Madam Speaker: It is a convention of the House, and it is a matter of common courtesy, that, if one Member intends to name another during a debate, or questions, he or she should arrange for that Member to be informed. Perhaps we can now get on—

Several hon. Members: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: No. There is no further point of order, I have dealt with the matter.

Orders of the Day — European Communities (Amendment) Bill

Considered in Committee [Progress, 13 January]

[DAME JANET FOOKES in the Chair]

Clause 1

TREATY ON EUROPEAN UNION

Amendment proposed [13 January]: No. 40, in page 1, line 9, leave out 'II,'.—[Mr. Cash.]

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Janet Fookes): I remind the Committee that we are also considering the following amendments:

No. 323, in page 1, line 9, leave out 'II'.

No. 11, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
'(except Article 2 on page 9 of Cm 1934)'.

No. 17, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
'(except Article 138a on pager 41 of Cm 1934)'.

No. 116, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
'(other than the following provisions set out under Article G—

Paragraph A (1)
Paragraph B (2)
Paragraph B (3)
Paragraph B (4)
Paragraph B (5)
Paragraph B (7)
Paragraph C

Paragraph D (10), (11), (12), (14), (15), (16), (17), (19), (20), (22), (23), (25), (26), (27), (28), (29), (30), (31), (32), (33), (34), (35), (37), (38)—except Articles 130, 130r, 130s and Title XVII) (39), (40), (41—except Article 138e) (45), (47), (48), (49), (50), (56), (57), (60), (61), (62), (63), (67), (69), (70), (71), (79), (80), (81), (83), and (84).'.

No. 124, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
'(excluding Article G B on page 9 to 11 of Cm 1934.)'.

No. 234, in page 1, line 9, after 'II' insert 'except' Article 138a'.

No. 91, in page 1, line 9, leave out 'III'.

No. 20, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
'except Article 73g (2) on page 14 of Cm.1934'.

No. 92, in page 1, line 9, leave out 'IV'.

No. 146, in page 1, line 10, after '1992', insert
'but not Article 1 in Title IV thereof'.

No. 183, in page 1, line 10, after '1992', insert
'but not Article Q in Title VII thereof'.

No. 122, in page 1, line 10, leave out from '1992' to 'and' in line 11.

No. 117, in page 1, line 12, after 'Protocols', insert 'other than—

'(a) The Protocol on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank
(b) The Protocol on the Excessive Deficit Procedure
(c) The Protocol on the Convergence Criteria referred to in Article 109 of the Treaty establishing the European Community
(d) The Protocol amending the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunity of the European Community
(e) The Protocol on the Transition to the Third Stage of Economic and Monetary Union
(f) The Protocol on Certain Provisions relating to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
(g) The Protocol on Social Policy

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means]

(h) The Protocol on Economic and Social Cohesion.'.

New Clause 10—Report of European Council—
'.—After the European Council has submitted its report after each of its meetings, Her Majesty's Government shall publish and lay such reports, and those annual reports in writing, as required by Title 1, Article D of the Treaty on European Union before Parliament, together with a statement as to their policy and performance in respect of the activities of the Union and their policies for its future.'.

Mr. Roger Knapman: On a point of order, Dame Janet. Can you say for certain whether this is the Committee stage of the Bill, because it seems that my colleagues are not being called to speak unless they have given their names to the Chairman of the Committee beforehand? Is there any precedent for that during the Committee stage of any Bill?

The Second Deputy Chairman: That is entirely a matter for the Chairman. There is no such arrangement, although the hon. Gentlemen seems to think that there is. If Members wish to be called, they are not obliged to write in beforehand.

Mr. Knapman: You will be aware, Dame Janet, that many hon. Gentlemen and Ladies wish to speak to this group of amendments who have not given their names. I take it from your answer that their efforts will not be prejudiced in any way.

The Second Deputy Chairman: The main prejudice will come from those hon. Members who speak for such a long time that it makes it more difficult for others to speak, and not from any action by the Chair.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Dame Janet. I am acting on the assumption that the procedures of this Committee are not dissimilar in principle to those in a Committee upstairs and that they only vary slightly in practice. You will know, as all hon. Members do, that it is not infrequent for more than one Minister to be a member of a Committee upstairs. You may also know, from conversations with colleagues, that the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, who I am glad to see present, has given notice that his hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is likely to reply to the debate on financial matters. You will also recall that the Minister spoke third in the debate and that many hon. Members—all but the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash)—have asked questions relating to foreign affairs and international law. We hope that no decision will be made that would prejudice the Minister of State having the opportunity to contribute again so that he may reply to those questions before the debate is concluded. He might have to indicate a willingness to do so, but without his reply the debate would be incomplete.

The Second Deputy Chairman: I cannot prejudge who may wish to catch my eye.

Sir Teddy Taylor: On a point of order, Dame Janet. The Leader of the House suggested a few minutes ago that I should raise this matter on a point of order. As you will know, he announced that three days will be allocated to discussion of the Bill next week, and it seems that, because of the strength of feeling expressed,

even longer might have to be allocated during the following week. I was grateful, as I am sure were all hon. Members, that you and your colleagues decided to allow us to debate a clause dealing with a referendum, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). Could you consider our debating that new clause earlier, rather than at the end of the proceedings? There seems to be a widespread feeling that if that new clause were considered and agreed to, the proceedings on this important Bill might be completed quickly instead of taking a considerable time.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Further to that point of order, Dame Janet. I have tabled several amendments to the Bill concerning a referendum and I endorse the view expressed by the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) that discussion of this lengthy Bill, which we must examine in great detail if a proper examination is to be undertaken, could well be curtailed. If it were decided, through an amendment, to provide the public with the opportunity to have a referendum, one would hope that the debate would shift to a much wider auditorium than this place—to the nation at large. Most decent, sensible democrats would welcome that. I endorse the view that the democratic procedures would benefit if an amendment or new clause were to be debated and passed, to allow the public the opportunity to join in the debate—a debate whose structure will inevitably be curtailed until the decision is made. An early decision on a referendum would be very welcome, not only here, but outside by the majority of the population. They have seen the Danes have a referendum in Denmark and they are asking, "Why can't we have a referendum about this important issue?"

Several hon. Members: rose—

The Second Deputy Chairman: I think that I can deal with that point of order now. It is not for the Chair to vary the normal order in which amendments are taken.

Mr. Bill Walker: On a point of order, Dame Janet. I am not complaining about the length of speeches because so far they have been interesting and instructive and I have listened to most of them. This legislation is important and I want to draw your attention to the fact that it is important to all parts of the United Kingdom, and particularly to Scotland, which enjoys a unique relationship within this unitary Parliament, brought about by the union that really matters, the Union of the United Kingdom. Therefore, it is important for the people of Scotland to understand that their views are being heard, listened to and noted in this Parliament.

The Second Deputy Chairman: I am afraid that that is not a point of order for the Chair, although it might be an interesting observation.

Mr. Tim Devlin: On a point of order, Dame Janet. Would it not assist the House if those hon. Members who are calling for the debate on a referendum clause to be brought forward—many of them have also tabled many amendments that are designed to keep the Bill going in the House for as long as possible—[Interruption.]

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. Hon. Members may not like the views being expressed, but the hon. Gentleman has the right to express them, providing that they take the form of a point of order.

Mr. Devlin: The point of order is that if some of those hon. Members who have tabled a large number of amendments wish to bring forward an amendment for an early vote, could they not do so by withdrawing the considerable number of amendments that they have already tabled?

The Second Deputy Chairman: That is not a point of order for the Chair.

Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Dame Janet. I know that you would always want to be helpful to the House and this is an opportunity for you to be very helpful. This is a wide-ranging and important debate, which covers the vast bulk of the treaty. There have been many debates on the Maastricht treaty, but many hon. Members would like to catch your eye today and some have been unable to catch eyes in previous debates.
This may be the most important and wide-ranging debate on the Bill. It is unlikely that the Government would wish to curtail today's debate, but if they have told you that they will seek—God forbid—to move a closure motion at some stage today, quite inappropriately, could you tell the House now at what time the Government will seek to close the debate so that hon. Members can make their contribution within that time scale?

The Second Deputy Chairman: I remain in blissful ignorance of the Government's intentions.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: On a point of order, Dame Janet. This is the most important constitutional Bill since I have been in the House. It seeks to take large powers from the people of this country and reduce the position of the Executive and its accountability to the nation. I seek clarification on the observation that you made, which seemed to indicate that, because of the complex and difficult matters under discussion, if a speech is lengthy and ranges across the amendments before us, it curtails other Members' ability to make representations on behalf of their constituents. It therefore curtails free speech on this major constitutional arrangement.
Are you saying that an hon. Member who speaks in order for a long time will curtail the ability of other hon. Members to speak? Is that a new Committee ruling which we must bear in mind while trying to debate these great issues?

The Second Deputy Chairman: I have no such grandiose ideas in mind. I was merely making the common-sense observation that if hon. Members want to talk this afternoon, it is likely to be easier if they make shorter rather than longer speeches. However, that is not for the Chair to determine.

Mr. Quentin Davies: On a point of order, Dame Janet. Is it not particularly perverse of hon. Members who have a stated commitment to the principle of parliamentary sovereignty—I know how sincere that commitment is on the part of the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor)—to suggest that, if there were a referendum on the Maastricht treaty, we would somehow be able to curtail our discussion of the Bill now? If one believes in parliamentary scrutiny and if there is to be a referendum, it is particularly important that we should thoroughly examine—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. That is clearly not a point of order but rather an observation.

Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Dame Janet. Can you help me? I have sat through all the debates on this treaty. How can a Member from another part of the United Kingdom—Northern Ireland—make a contribution? I have approached the Chair, but have not been satisfied. I have been a Member of the House for 22 years and have never had to put down my name to speak in Committee. If one was present and stood up, one was likely to be called to speak. Can you assure hon. Members from Northern Ireland that, at some time during the debate, at least one of them will be called?

The Second Deputy Chairman: May I make it clear that there is no obligation on any Member during the Committee stage, or in any debate whatever, to put down his or her name in advance. I have tried to take note of those who rise in their places when one speaker gives way to another.

Mr. Knapman: On a point of order, Dame Janet. Can you confirm that, when a closure motion was moved in Committee before Christmas, although Members representing Welsh, Scottish and Northern Ireland constituencies were present—the Bill affects the whole of the United Kingdom—no hon. Member from any of those three countries was invited to speak prior to the closure. We have had three statements this afternoon and it is now 6 o'clock, so it will be a short debating day. Is that likely to occur again or will hon. Members from those other parts of the United Kingdom have a chance to speak on this occasion?

The Second Deputy Chairman: I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Member who would have the Floor now, but for the points of order, represents Wales.

Mr. Bill Walker: Further to the previous point of order that I tried to make but failed so miserably, Dame Janet. In your position as guardian of the interests of Back Benchers in Parliament, you will sometimes be required to accept or reject closure motions. Will you bear in mind the interests of the whole of the United Kingdom? I do not make a frivolous point because we know of the separatist movements within the United Kingdom, which wish to break up this unitary Parliament and the United Kingdom. The strongest card that we have to play against them is to ensure that the interests of parts of the United Kingdom such as Scotland are well looked after in the Chamber. If, by chance and for whatever reason, hon. Members are not called, separatists can use that as a device to claim that their interests are not being catered for. I draw your attention to that aspect on closure motions with respect and hope that you will bear it in mind.

The Second Deputy Chairman: I hope that I shall not be found wanting in my duties in that regard. However, we can best help by resuming the debate.

Mr. Denzil Davies: I am grateful to you, Dame Janet, for reminding the Committee that we are debating the first batch of amendments on the amendment paper.
As the House was full last night when I commenced my speech and as every hon. Member was listening intently, I have no intention of wasting time going over the same ground. I know that the Minister of State, Foreign and


Commonwealth Office, the right hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), will be disappointed, but I shall merely summarise what I said, especially in relation to amendment No. 17, which is the third amendment in the batch and was discussed by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith).
Before the House heard last night's statement on Iraq, I was arguing that, far from assisting those of my hon. Friends who are in favour of the treaty, I understood article 2 to do the opposite. Although they may have thought that article 2 was better than a fig leaf covering all the ghastly following articles, it is all of a part with the rest of the treaty. To borrow a phrase from the old days of nuclear defence, the treaty is a "seamless web", starting with article 2 and continuing in that vein.
Some of my hon. Friend's speeches did not show proper respect for those who drafted the treaty. I never cease to admire the intellectual power of those who drafted it. I do not know who they are and I do not make a cynical or sarcastic point. I never cease to admire the intellectual elegance, despite the convoluted language, of the manner in which the matter has been framed. It has been thought out carefully from the beginning and the articles all fit in and work their way through to a conclusion. We should therefore not be flippant about the treaty and say that it does not mean this or that. It has been carefully and diligently thought out.
Article 2 contains three phrases dealing with economic matters, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East and other hon. Friends referred. Indeed, they referred to them as though they would have liked them to be in the Labour party manifesto. I was a little worried about that. The first phrase—and the most difficult—is
a high degree of convergence".
My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East seemed to be saying that we were in favour of a high degree of convergence. The only convergence indicators that I can find as I look through the treaty are the reduction of inflation down to price stability—a euphemism for almost zero inflation—the reduction of budget deficits to 3 per cent. and 60 per cent., and the eventual locking of exchange rates.
6 pm
As I tried to argue last night, I do not agree with the treaty, but I understand that those convergence indicators are major factors. If the treaty wants to achieve a single currency in the foreseeable future—be it 1999 or 2001—and if it is to contain all the other convergence indicators that Opposition Members would want it to contain, such as gross domestic product, unemployment and income per capita, we shall never arrive at the ultimate goal of a single currency and economic and monetary union.

Mr. David Winnick: Like my right hon. Friend, I oppose the Bill and the treaty on many grounds, not least economic and political sovereignty, which would be substantially eroded if the measure were passed, but would not those in our own ranks—if not Conservative Members—who are in favour of the measure have improved their case had they said that they were in favour of what was agreed in the Maastricht treaty but could not in any circumstances support limiting GDP, which would substantially reduce public spending? That

result would in turn give right-wing Governments further ammunition in their fight to introduce measures which would undoubtedly increase unemployment and lead to further deflation.

Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I shall come to the issue of excessive deficits, which was discussed at some length in yesterday's debate.
The next economic indicator referred to in article 2 is high employment. My hon. Friends made much of the phrase "high employment". My hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) thumbed through the treaty and found quite a few references not merely to high employment, but to "lasting high employment"—or was it "high and lasting employment?" I am not sure how the words were positioned.
We are all in favour of high employment. The treaty does not say anything about full employment, and I should be surprised if it did. It may mention unemployment somewhere. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles thumbing through the treaty to see if he can find such a reference. I shall be surprised if he does. The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the right hon. Member for Watford, who knows how the treaty was drafted, is smiling.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman ask his hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) to check by how much unemployment has increased in the European Economic Community compared with every other developed part of the world? That would give the right hon. Gentleman something to think about.

Mr. Davies: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles will deal with that issue. I was making a somewhat arid and textual point and saying that those who draft such measures are clever and understand what they are about. They would never mention unemployment. The monetarists—I do not use the word in a pejorative sense as I believe that monetary controls have a vital role to play in an economic system—believe that unemployment takes care of itself, so their only concern is to control inflation.
The phrase "high employment" is carefully chosen. Of course, everyone is in favour of high employment and the Government maintain that we now have it in Britain. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) laughs, but about 90 per cent. of what we used to call the insurable population—the employable population—are in fact employed. The Government have also maintained that there are more people in work now than at any other time. They even say that about Wales, where unemployment is high. The phrase "high employment" is carefully chosen by the clever people who draft such measures. The Minister of State smiles—I am not referring to him, although I am sure that he played a major part in drafting the treaty.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Garel-Jones): I am smiling because I think that the right hon. Gentleman is trying to imply that he is not a clever person but merely a common man speaking up. We all know better than that.

Mr. Davies: That is not what I was implying. I was merely stating that the phrase "high employment" was carefully chosen. If the unemployment level increased to 20 per cent. and 80 per cent. of the population was


employed, many people would argue that that was high employment. I do not know the level at which it ceases to be high employment—that is a matter of debate.
I am sorry to say to my hon. Friends the Members for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) and for Oxford, East and others that I do not think that there is much salvation or assistance in the phrase "high employment", which is part of the seamless web of the treaty.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: Further to my hon. Friend's point, could not the Government defend the present disastrously high level of unemployment as "high employment" and do they not indeed do so?

Mr. Davies: That is the very point I was trying to make. Until one starts discussing very low levels of employment—perhaps lower than 90 per cent.—the matter is subjective.

Mr. Calum Macdonald: I believe that my right hon. Friend is trying to distinguish between full employment and high employment, and is complaining that although the treaty refers to "high employment" it makes no mention of full employment. Will he define full employment? Does it mean 100 per cent. employment? If not, surely we are talking about high employment.

Mr. Davies: I am not distinguishing between high and full employment. I would have made the point that when we talk of full employment we all know that it is not 100 per cent. employment. I was merely arguing that the phrase "high employment" was chosen carefully because those who drafted the treaty did not wish it to make a specific commitment on unemployment. The thinking behind monetarist strategy—certainly as developed by the theorists in Europe in the 1980s, although it may be changing in the 1990s—is that employment takes care of itself.

Mr. Macdonald: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Davies: No; my hon. Friend can make his own speech. I have made my point.
I shall not repeat what I said last night about non-inflationary growth, but some of my hon. Friends have gone to town on the subject. My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool—who can perhaps be described as a member of the modernising tendency of the Labour party—wanted the subject to be contained in the Labour party manifesto. He said that everyone was in favour of non-inflationary growth. I noticed that as his speech and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East progressed, the term "non-inflationary growth" was dropped in favour of the word "growth". However, before one achieves non-inflationary growth one must have non-inflation. Those with modernist tendencies must be careful.
I am not sure about non-inflationary growth. I do not think that the residents of Hartlepool who own houses that they are trying to sell want non-inflationary growth. Most of middle England and the middle classes—perhaps I should say, à la Clinton, the working middle classes, although I do not think that the British middle classes would like to be called that—do not want non-inflationary growth. In fact, they are desperate for inflationary growth.
I caution my hon. Friends who are going a bundle on monetarist theory—as I have said, I do not use the term pejoratively—that they must treat that policy as part of a

pattern. Non-inflationary growth fits in with a school of thinking which has existed for a considerable time: it existed in the 1970s and was developed, mostly as academic theories, in the 1980s. We must be careful when we try to gain assistance from specific phrases simply because they make up part of the treaty.
Title VI of the treaty—perhaps it should be subtitle VI, although I can see why it has been made title VI—deals with economic and monetary union. There is article 104c, which deals with excessive deficits, and article 105, which deals with monetary policy and sets up the European system of central banks. I will deal first with excessive deficits, because there was some dispute on this side of the Committee and my hon. Friends—certainly my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool—dealt with it at length.
We can agree that according to the treaty the budget deficit must not be more than 60 per cent. of gross domestic product, and Government debt—not strictly the public sector borrowing requirement, but Government debt—must not be more than 3 per cent. of GDP. My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool—having told us that it is really all a matter of the broad sweep, the general interpretation, and that the politicians still have their hands on it all and therefore it is all right—proceeded to embark on a textual criticism of the article on excessive deficits. He looked at almost every comma and every word to try to show that it did not really mean 3 per cent. and that we would not be affected.
Then, after all this hoo-ha and argument, my hon. Friend came to a conclusion with which I agree. I tried to intervene to say this, but I do not criticise him for not giving way because he had given way so often. This is what he said, and I agree entirely:
The main requirement in relation to the deficit is for progress to be made towards the target."—[Official Report, 13 January 1993; Vol. 216, c. 1003.]
I cannot disagree with that statement. It is an almost ministerial type statement, well honed, well considered. We all admire the way my hon. Friend does these things and we all admired his speech. So the beautiful summing up of the article is that the main requirement is progress towards the target. The Financial Secretary may even repeat the words, taken from a Treasury brief, when he is winding up.
It does not have to be done in one year, of course. No one could get the Italian deficit down to 3 per cent. in one year; even those who framed this treaty in their ivory towers realise that. It is not a big bang theory at all; it is death by a thousand cuts. It will happen gradually because, as my hon. Friend says quite clearly, it is progress towards the target. The target we are concerned with is the percentage of GDP that the Government borrow. We understand that at the moment it is around 7 or 8 per cent., so the Government will no doubt start now, and will certainly have to start on 1 December 1994, if the Bill goes through the House and the treaty is ratified. The Government will have to start when stage 2 starts, not by imposition but gradually over the years, reducing that 7 per cent. to the 3 per cent. in the treaty. I am sure that my hon. Friend would not argue that that is wrong; it is what is said in the treaty.

Mr. Peter Shore: My right hon. Friend is being almost too generous with regard to these reference figures, 3 per cent. and 60 per cent., even allowing for the margin of movement, because both


sub-clauses contain the words "close to" the reference level; they must be moving in the right direction and they must also be close to the reference level.

Mr. Davies: Yes, indeed, they have to, because the whole purpose of the exercise is to get eventually to economic and monetary union and a common currency.
This exercise will probably have to go on, because we shall not have arrived at 3 per cent. by the time the next Labour Government take over in 1996 or 1997. We may not have reached 3 per cent. by then; we may be around 5 per cent.—who knows? The Government of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) will come in faced with this. The Government will perhaps be composed of a number of parties. We may find as deputy Prime Minister the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown)—we do not know—and my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East having worked hard in his unproductive orchard, will by then have become Financial Secretary. My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool will be a vigorous Back Bencher, striving to get Government money for the inner cities of the north-east, particularly Hartlepool. He will be asking my right hon. Friends for more money, but they will be looking at his speeches and quoting back at him his statement that we have to reach the target. He will have to go back to Hartlepool and explain matters to his constituency party. Young people, not only in Hartlepool but in Llanelli, who drive around in cars that are not theirs and put matches into petrol tanks will probably not come to any of our meetings, but it will have to be explained to them, too, somehow or other, that we cannot do much about it; it is there in the treaty and unfortunately the Lib-Lab Government, or whoever they may be, with the modernising tendency no doubt in the vanguard, will have gradually to start making cuts.
6.15 pm
We may not have to cut expenditure, however; we may put up taxation. We have assumed that the way to get to the 3 per cent. is to cut public expenditure, but it is a reduction of Government debt and, as far as I am aware, there are two ways of reducing Government debt: reducing expenditure or increasing taxation, or a combination of the two. That choice will still be there.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool referred to "hands-on" politicians, and certainly the hands-on politician will have to decide whether we put up taxes or cut public expenditure.

Mr. Walter Sweeney: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the way to balance the books is not to increase taxation but to increase revenue? Results in the past have shown that very often there has been an increased take from taxation accompanying a reduction in income tax.

Mr. Davies: I do not know whether the Laffer curve made any sense. If the hon. Gentleman wants to talk about the Laffer curve, which I believe was something drawn on the back of an envelope in a Washington restaurant, that is fine, but it is not something that we should go into at the moment.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: On this wonderfully fair-minded valuing of an increase in taxation or a decrease in

expenditure, the Community is charged with trying to harmonise taxes, which constrains the ability of the Government to do one side of the accounting.

Mr. Davies: That is the point that I was seeking to make—that, even if there is this marvellous freedom of choice whether to increase taxes or cut public expenditure, there are constraints on taxation. If there is harmonisation of indirect taxes, that imposes constraints, and there may be other harmonisation measures.

Mr. Marlow: Just supposing that the mythical modernising future Labour Government are unable to tear up their election promises and are unable to fulfil the requirements of the treaty that some of his hon. Friends seem so ready to impose upon themselves at the moment, is it not the case that Community institutions, on the basis of a two-thirds majority of countries outside the United Kingdom, would be able to make the Government's task even more difficult by imposing fines upon them?

Mr. Davies: That is what will happen eventually, but it will not happen overnight; they will have another meeting, make a statement, bring a little pressure to bear here and there, and an application from the Hartlepool development corporation to the European Development bank for a loan will be refused. There are many ways of doing these things, and ultimately there may be a gunboat, or whatever—I do not know. Whatever happens, however, there will have to be compliance, because that is how the system works.
I do not think that we should underestimate the effect that the "excessive deficits" article will have on both parties' policies, and the constraints that it will place on them to spend judiciously with the aim of maintaining economic growth.

Mr. Spearing: Will my right hon. Friend also consider the issue of direct taxation? Under article 8a as it currently stands, there is to be no frontier within the union, but would not differentiation of direct taxation of income through labour ultimately constitute that? Given that there must be a level playing field in regard to skills, and in regard to firms employing people throughout the Community, might not differential income tax constitute a fiscal frontier which might be judged inconsistent with article 8a?

Mr. Davies: I do not know. Even now, in practice, we are constrained by the tax rates of other EC countries, because we trade with them now and will trade more with them in the future. Actual constraints already exist, whether or not they constitute legal constraints.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool made a marvellous speech, which is no more than we would expect of him. He had worked hard at that speech. At some stage, he threw out an observation about Delors 2. He said that he was in favour of it—which, of course, is perfectly all right. Delors 2 says that there should be more money in the budget; if it had been accepted, I believe that the budget would have been 1.8 or 1.9 per cent. of the gross domestic product of the 12 countries. However, I did not understand the reference to Delors 2 in the context of excessive deficits. On the one hand, we are told that we must cut our expenditure to an eventual 3 per cent.; on the other, we are told that we must find money to give Mr. Delors so that he has public expenditure funds to pay back to us.
I am sorry if I have done an injustice to my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool; that may not be what he meant. I made my comment en passant, as they say. In any event, he was right to mention Delors 2, which illustrates a real problem. Once countries embark on the exercise of converging economies without actually doing so—the exercise, in fact, of converging monetary and financial indicators—and establish a common currency, as the United States has done, massive transfers will be needed. Conservative Members may not agree with that—it may not accord with their philosophy—but many non-ideological economists will confirm that massive transfers are needed between, say, California and North Dakota.

Mr. John Butcher: May I draw the right hon. Gentlemen's attention to a rather curious aspect of the matter? Hon. Members may belong to the Liverpool or the Cambridge school of economists, they may be Keynesians or monetarists, they may be Ministers, or they may be Opposition Front Benchers, but what unites virtually all hon. Members is the consensus that, at a time of recession, deficits should be allowed to widen. It is hoped, of course, that they will narrow at times of recovery. Why, given that this part of the treaty will deny consensus to the House, are we all expected to vote like sheep for such a ridiculous proposition?

Mr. Davies: ; That is a good point. I am not sure whether the religious school in Liverpool will agree with what the hon. Gentleman has said; certainly, it does not necessarily accord with strict monetarist philosophy.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that a splendid example of the single currency and the single bank currently operates in the United Kingdom, where substantial amounts of taxpayers' funds are transferred from the well-paid to the poorer areas? The right hon. Gentleman comes from Wales, and I come from Scotland; we understand that system, have seen it in operation and do not disagree with it.

Mr. Davies: That is the point that I was trying to make. The same can be observed in the United States. In any event, massive transfers would be required.
In the 1970s, the McDougall report said that, with a common or single currency within economic and monetary union, transfers would have to constitute about 7 per cent. of GDP—and that was before Portugal, Spain and Greece joined the Community. We must now envisage a transfer of between 10 and 12 per cent. of GDP to alleviate the problem of unemployment in South Dakota, and to lessen the difference in wealth between it and California.
That money is not going to arrive, partly because it is not there and partly because no mechanism exists to provide it. The Germans are the paymasters, and they have problems in their own country; certainly, Britain cannot provide it. If no Government have the power to raise taxation at European level, the money will never be there. We are in the worst of all possible worlds. We have transferred democratic power, and we are moving towards a common currency, but we have none of the instruments needed to alleviate—I put it no higher than that—the concentration of economic power in a single currency.

Mr. Barry Legg: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that many of the economic problems suffered in 19th-century Ireland were due to a

single currency? The Irish economy fell further and further behind. Another consequence was the mass emigration of the Irish population to the United Kingdom mainland.

Mr. Davies: I have enough problems trying to understand the treaty without going into Irish economics. The current Irish position is very interesting, however. I am told that Ireland has achieved economic success: apparently, it has managed to get inflation down to about 3 per cent.; meanwhile, interest rates have risen 100 per cent. overnight, and unemployment stands at at least 17 per cent. of the people who are left in the country. That, evidently, is the blueprint. The French socialists have pursued the same policies. It is a modernising party, which has not existed for long and looks as though, after the next election, it will not exist at all.
Labour Members sometimes refer fondly to the French socialist party as our sister party. I used to be Labour's defence spokesman; the youngsters in the House will not remember that. Sometimes I would go and talk to members of the French socialist party. "Sister party" may not have been the right description.
The French socialists sold out very early. Now France has a strong economy: it has been stronger than the British economy for a long time. It has low inflation, along with rising unemployment, high interest rates and the "franc fort", which is practically a Vichy franc: it is locked into the Bundesbank and is desperate for support. Come March, we shall see a proliferation of parties, the breakdown of the present Government and all sorts of problems. I remind my hon. Friends that that does not apply only to France; the left in Europe had better start thinking, because all these developments are destroying it.
The beneficiaries will not be the Christian Democrats. The Minister does not like the Christian Democrats. I will tell his relations in my constituency about that. He said yesterday that he did not like them. Nice Herr Kohl will not be the beneficiary of all this because lots of nasty people far to his left will benefit from it. So if the modernising tendency thinks that this is some kind of modernising blueprint for the Labour party, let them just look at the French socialist party.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: The right hon. Member modestly reminds us that he has been a defence spokesman for his party. With even greater modesty, he omitted to say that before that he was a Treasury Minister for the Labour Government in the mid-1970s. We have enjoyed his extremely amusing speech, particularly his obsession with his hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) and his speech last night—subject to reading the record carefully, I think that he mentioned his hon. Friend 27 times—but I remember what he said when he was a Treasury Minister. It is a long time ago and the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I bring up something of great importance: he has refused ever since to retract it, but I remember it vividly and it is on record in Hansard. He said that the proportion of the French population engaged in agriculture in those days was 25 per cent. I remember that I and other hon. Members asked him to correct the figure because it was 7 per cent., but he refused to do so. Notwithstanding his hugely amusing speech, therefore, how can we attach any credence to what he is saying now? [Interruption.]

Mr. Davies: It is all right, I knew what the hon. Gentleman was going to say. He says it all the time. He caught me out on one occasion. When he is a Minister—if he can keep working at it, I hope that he will eventually become one—I will try and catch him out.
I have referred to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool not because of anything to do with him personally but because he is a representative of the modernising tendency in the Labour party, and I am very concerned that the modernisation goes ahead properly, without leading to the destruction of the party. I was merely pointing out that the kind of modernisation carried out by the French socialist party has not worked very well.
In any event, I will move on to article 105 and the European central bank. The bank is to be the instrument for the control of inflation and of monetary policy. It is quite interesting to look at the set-up because, as one of my hon. Friends said, it is called the European system of central banks. It is described in this way because the Germans have plonked into the middle of this treaty their own federal system of the Bundesbank which has lots of other little banks all round the Länderbanks. So when this goes through, and after the statute has been brought in to make the Bank of England more or less autonomous according to the statutes of the central bank, we, too, shall have a Länderbank which will be the Bank of England, as it were, on the outside and the European central bank in the middle.
The object of the central bank is to control inflation by monetary means. It is a monetarist treaty. The belief is that inflation can be controlled only by monetary means. There is a lot of mythology about this, about reserves and corsets and things like that, but monetary control is basically a matter of interest rates and, in the end, whatever few extra reserves the Bundesbank puts into the economy or the Bank of England takes out, whatever straitjackets are put round, whatever dual rates of interest the French may play with—the commercial or the financial franc—control of monetary policy is about interest rates, and the object of the central bank is to control interest rates.
The control of interest rates is the prime instrument for trying to arrive at price stability. Price stability means getting as close as possible to zero inflation, not every price being stable but there being stability across the board and prices not moving up and down. So the bank exists and it is autonomous for that very reason because, as Mr. Gavin Davies, who works for Goldman Sachs, pointed out in a perceptive article in The Independent this week, the theory used to be, and the continental theory still is, that the control of inflation is a technical matter and that, because it is technical, it should be taken out of the hands of politicians and put on auto-pilot. The matter is then dealt with purely technically, with no consideration of output, growth or unemployment.
This, too, reminds me of my days as defence spokesman. I think it was Edward Teller or one of his ilk who devised something called the doomsday machine. They did not believe that people could actually carry out deterrence; in other words, politicians might not unleash the weapons when the time came. The only way deterrence could work was to programme this doomsday machine, and when the Russian missiles passed a certain point, half-way across the Atlantic or wherever, the machine would trigger off the American response and the Russians would know that.
It would be a bit like that for control of inflation. The autonomous bank is the auto-pilot and merely carries out decisions. When my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool was speaking yesterday, one or two hon. Members interrupted from a sedentary position to say that this was nonsense, that the Bundesbank was not independent, that it listened to politicians and that it was subject to pressure. Obviously, even the Bundesbank cannot live in a complete vacuum, but those of my hon. Friends who fondly believe that the Bundesbank is not autonomous should just talk to former Chancellor Schmidt. What happened to him in 1980 or 1981? He is convinced that, by refusing to go along with what he wanted, the Bundesbank brought down his Government. But we have no need to go back as far as 1981; we need only look at what is happening now. So the Bundesbank is as autonomous as it is possible to be and, on a European scale, it will be even more autonomous because it will not have a Government breathing down its neck: it will have something called ECOFIN which seems to figure broadly in some debates, but there will be no Government there even to make speeches and tell the bank what it should do. The bank is autonomous, it decides on interest rates and, as we have seen, it does so without too much consideration of the effects.

Mr. Bowen Wells: May I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to article 2 of the treaty and what it says, because this is what article 105 on monetary policy is related to? Perhaps he will tell the Committee if he is in favour of the objectives in article 2, which reads,
It shall be the aim of the Community, by establishing a Common Market and progressively approximating the economic policies of Member States, to promote throughout the Community a harmonious development of economic activities, a continuous and balanced expansion, an increased stability, an accelerated raising of the standard of living and closer relations between its Member States.
That is what article 2 says, and the means of achieving this is said to be the establishment of the central bank.

Mr. Davies: I have dealt with article 2. I tried last night, but no one was listening. I tried just now, but again the hon. Gentleman was not listening. So I will not go back to it.
I turn now to the split between economic and monetary policy inherent in setting up the bank. It seems to me very silly, to use a not particularly elegant word, to split economic policy from monetary policy. We have seen what is happening in Germany today. I am not saying that the problems in east Germany could be alleviated easily if there were no separate Bundesbank, but if ever there was an exercise to demonstrate that perhaps it does not make sense to separate economic policy from monetary policy, east Germany is it.
The German Government want to increase public expenditure to revive the economy of east Germany, but the Bundesbank, quite properly, pays not a blind bit of interest because, by statute, it is concerned only with the internal value of the currency. In a sedentary intervention—I think that I heard him right—my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) said that during reunification the Germans exchanged one east mark for one west mark. That, apparently, was a good example of how politicians can overrule the Bundesbank. That is not true. The Bundesbank is concerned only with the internal value of the mark, which basically is inflation. That is why


Mr. Kohl was able to offer—in an expensive and damaging way—one west mark for one east mark. Karl Otto Pöhl resigned because he disagreed with what the Government were doing, but that was within the province of the Government, not the Bundesbank.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: The hon. Gentleman is making a terribly important speech. I do not recall reading in the Labour party's manifesto—for which, I know, the right hon. Gentleman is not responsible—or in our manifesto a proposal to set up an independent British central bank. I should like to know when that became Labour policy and whether the right hon. Gentleman thinks that it is an appropriate device for effecting a fundamental change in our economic management through the surrogacy of this Maastricht treaty. The House has not debated the principles behind an independent central bank for this country alone, yet we are legislating for it without a proper debate.

Mr. Davies: That is right; it is article 108, I think, which will be enacted under the Bill.
I am told that an independent, autonomous British bank is Labour policy—[HON. MEMBERS: "Since when?"] It was decided by the non-modernised Labour party at last year's conference—I do not know what the modernised one will do. In a short composite resolution, it decided that the Bank of England should be independent or autonomous. I prefer "autonomous". My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool is good on words. Perhaps he appreciates that the word "autonomous" conveys the impression a bit better.
All I am saying is that the proposed split is very silly, but the mistake is being repeated with the European central bank. The European central bank will be responsible for the internal value of the ecu. We were told yesterday, "It is all right; the exchange rate of the ecu will be determined by politicians". I do not disagree. The external value of the ecu will be floating. I do not think that perfect floating can be achieved, but party policy is managed floating. I do not know what that is, so I had better read the conference resolution. I am confused because apparently we must have fixed exchange rates at the moment, but once we have reached the promised land the ecu will float.

Mr. Shepherd: I can bring the right hon. Gentleman hot news from the Frost interview with the Prime Minister. Maastricht is slightly out of date as the Prime Minister is working on a world exchange rate mechanism: the Japanese yen and United States dollar will be intimately linked in this more universalist approach. I know that some foolish hon. Members—even Conservative Members—have giggled at the suggestion, but the right hon. Gentleman should impress on the House the importance of these developments.

Mr. Davies: A world ERM is basically Bretton Woods. Finally—

Mr. Ron Leighton: More.

Mr. Davies: I have run out of things to say.
What depresses me about my colleagues who are in favour of this European venture is that they now tend to deny it. I should have thought that the ends justify the means and that they would rejoice in the convergence

criteria, the central bank and everything that has been set up because the object is to achieve EMU and a single currency as soon as possible.
Previous members of my party—the Jenkinses and Levers—would have rejoiced and said, "The pain is all worth it; the end is justified by the means", which is almost a Leninist approach to economic and political life.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: Would the right hon. Gentleman like to add to his general list of subjects for rejoicing the fact that the promised land is not yet upon us? The Danish Government have resigned, which I understand will mean that the Danish referendum will be held later, so those who support Maastricht will have to wait a little longer for heaven on earth.

Mr. Toby Jessel: On a point of order, Dame Janet. Can what we have just heard affect the way in which time is assigned to the Bill? The Prime Minister gave a clear assurance that the Bill will not be given a Third Reading until after the second Danish referendum. If the second referendum is to be postponed by a change of Government and a possible general election in Denmark, that gives us much more time to discuss fully every clause of the Bill, and neither the Government nor anyone else should be in any hurry.

Mr. Marlow: Further to that point of order, Dame Janet. This is momentous news. It was the intention of the previous lamented Danish Government to put the Edinburgh conclusions to the people of Denmark in a second plebiscite or referendum. There is now no Government in Denmark. The next Danish Government might decide that they do not want to proceed further with this rotten treaty. As there is much uncertainty, is not it appropriate for a Minister to inform the House of the Government's proposals in these new circumstances? It is futile and fatuous for us to continue the debate when there is no Government in Denmark, no prospect of a referendum, and probably no prospect that the treaty will proceed in Denmark. Why proceed with the debate when the whole thing is stone dead?

Mr. George Robertson: Further to the point of order, Dame Janet. Before the Committee gets overexcited, may I point out that sometimes we imagine that we are at the centre of the world, but occasionally are reminded that we are not? So far as I know, only the Danish Prime Minister has resigned. As the Conservative party knows only too well, and as the Opposition know to our cost, that does not automatically mean a general election.

The Second Deputy Chairman: I think that I can now answer the point, having heard the points of order. As Chairman of this Committee of the whole House, I have no responsibility for other Governments or what impact they might have. My only concern is with the Committee stage before us.

Mr. Dykes: I have a point of order, Dame Janet, but not exactly on that point, which I am not seeking to follow, as you have given us your conclusion, for which we thank you.
Can you guide the House? Many hon. Members on both sides are shocked and angered by the anti-Europeans saying that the sovereignty of this Chamber and this Parliament is sacrosanct and not to be negotiated away;


yet they are constantly harping on the constitutional activities of another country and saying that they should be considered before we come to a decision. Can you guide the Committee?

The Second Deputy Chairman: Yes. That is not a point of order for the Chair. As the hon. Member well knows, hon. Members must be responsible for what they say.

Mr. Davies: If the Danish Government had resigned I was proposing to go on for another hour, but as it was just the Danish Prime Minister I shall sit down. I merely say that these are fundamental issues both for my party and for the House and there is also the question of democracy to be taken into account quite apart from economic policy. No doubt we can come back to these matters when we reach further amendments. I think that we should look at them in the interests of the economy of this country and I see nothing here that will do other than cause damage.

Mr. Ian Taylor: We have listened to an impressive speech from the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies). He is genuinely one of those witty speakers to whom one could listen for hours. Indeed, we did. Despite the usual courtesies, the right hon. Gentleman will, of course, wish to leave the Chamber quite rapidly and I well understand that, because clearly his constituents will want to know that the speech he made in the Committee this afternoon and last evening brought down the Danish Prime Minister. That is obviously momentous news. It is quite difficult to follow that speech and I shall endeavour to be slightly briefer, but the right hon. Gentleman has made important points on this cluster of amendments.
The fact that the Danish Prime Minister may have resigned is obviously of great interest to this Committee, but in the midst of a well-attended Committee session we should value the fact that the Committee is scrutinising the Maastricht Bill for itself. The provisions of the Bill are important to the Committee and this country and the attitudes in another country are not of immediate importance, Indeed, the timetable that the Prime Minister has set forth, to complete Third Reading by May at the latest, would still be valid and if the Danes decided to delay their referendum we would clearly maintain that timetable because the original intention was on the basis that the Prime Minister believed that the Danes would have had an earlier referendum.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: I am at a loss to understand quite the point, because as I understand it the Foreign Secretary has assured us that if the Danes fail to ratify the treaty, it is dead. Therefore, this Committee hangs upon the events that take place in Denmark. I should point out to my hon. Friend that I was a Member, as was he, when we passed, lamentably, the Bill called the Football Spectators Bill. The House was marched to the passing of a statute which hung upon someone else's judgment. That is self-denigratory and humbling to this Committee and inappropriate for the passing of great legislation. The truth of the matter is that if the Foreign Secretary's statement stands, the Committee's deliberations are consequential on what the Danes do.

Mr. Taylor: With great respect to my hon. Friend, who is a learned constitutional expert, the reality is that this

Committee's deliberations on the Bill are the responsibility of this Committee. The fact that the whole Maastricht treaty may be rendered invalid by the Danish decision is a separate matter. But there are very great differences to the interests of this country according whether or not we merely respond to what the Danes do.
I strongly hope that this country and this Parliament will make their own decisions. If, subsequently, the Danes were not to ratify the treaty, clearly the 12 members of the Community would need to get together and the Foreign Secretary has rightly said that the Danish membership of the Community is as important as that of the other members, in the sense that there are 12 members of the Community.
That is not the same thing as delaying decisions in this Committee because decisions may be delayed in another country. I strongly think that this Committee should take itself sufficiently seriously to make sure that we conduct our deliberations on the treaty in this country's interests.

Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way because he may be surprised to know that I welcome almost everything he has just said, but has he not forgotten one important factor? Unless the Folketing recommends that the consequences of the decision taken in Edinburgh will precipitate another referendum or unless the Danes believe that those recommendations can be made—and they were made, were they not, and negotiated, perhaps for completely different reasons, by the Prime Minister who has only just resigned—is it not possible that another Prime Minister will make another recommendation? There is as yet no full guarantee that any referendum will take place. In those circumstances, at least the need for speed or indeed for any further proceedings at all may disappear.

Mr. Taylor: I am grateful to my old sparring partner, the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), for his support and I may store that up for the future as well. On the wider point, we do not know what the Danish Parliament will do, but the idea that we should suspend these discussions because we do not know—

Mr. Giles Radice: rose—

Mr. Taylor: I am endeavouring to answer the first point, then I will give way.

Mr. Radice: I was trying to help.

Mr. Taylor: Let me help myself before the hon. Member helps me, if I may. The reality is that seven of the eight Danish parties are now, effectively, in favour of what the Danish Government negotiated, so I think that we should stop second-guessing the Danish situation and look at our own.
The point about the amendments in this group is that they effectively remove the amendments to the treaty of Rome that were negotiated at Maastricht. We have heard various arguments about why that should be the case. The difficulty I find is that those who support the amendments before us would therefore be left with the treaty of Rome and the Single European Act unchanged. That is particularly interesting for my hon. Friend for Stafford (Mr. Cash), who is not with us at present. The fact that he supported the Single European Act is a matter of interest and slight confusion for many of the rest of us. I raised this in the debate in Committee in December and it was raised


again yesterday. The fact is that it was the Single European Act that made the dramatic step forward from the treaty of Rome and the arguments that were used yesterday, that the treaty of Rome and the Single European Act were all about an economic community, as if we had never left EFTA, are clearly and self-evidently bogus.
In the treaty of Rome there are many references to matters other than economics and if one looks at the Single European Act one will find that it added many items other than those specifically connected with the single market, the 1992 programme. The chapter headings of the Single European Act themselves indicate that social policy was very much in the forefront of the minds of the people who negotiated the treaty, and economic and monetary co-operation, with "union" in brackets, were also very much in the forefront of people's minds with the consequences that flowed from that, which are, of course, not just free trade consequences.
Indeed even in title II, article 3, there were several insertions into the activities of the Community made by the Single European Act. One of them was policy in the social sphere compromising the European social fund, for example. Another was strengthening of economic and social cohesion.
It is impossible to say that if we were to abolish all the changes made in the Maastricht treaty we would be left with something that was about economics. That is simply not the case.
It is interesting that, had he but realised it, my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford was in some difficulty with the grounds on which he chose to defend his position. In order to achieve the 1992 programme—the 285 measures required to create a free market with free movement of goods, people, services and capital—we had to have a series of strong Community institutions and a strong referee to ensure that the measures were applied evenly—I shall deal with that issue later—and we had to overcome the protectionist instincts that could arise over a variety of issues in any of the member countries. That was understood by our then Prime Minister, Lady Thatcher. It was why the Single European Act embraced qualified majority voting.
7 pm
In order to arrive at the very thing that my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford defends himself as having supported, we had to strengthen the institutions that he now says he cannot abide and which he regards as marking the end of Britain as we know it. That is bogus. We joined the European Community in the 1970s, after a big debate, because it was believed to be in Britain's interests that there should not be built on the continent a bloc which we failed to influence.
Indeed, we joined the Community to prevent something which, in the 1950s, we thought would never happen—the solidifying of the Franco-German alliance. That is an important point. As a Labour Foreign Secretary, Anthony Crosland, remarked, it represented the first permanent attachment of Britain to the continent since the Reformation. It was the first time that we believed that we had to make such a commitment to prevent what has always been part of British foreign policy, which is that there should not be a continental bloc that we would be unable to influence. Influencing it was so essential to us that we joined the Community with all the infrastructure that it embraced.

Mr. Michael Lord: My hon. Friend is taking great pains to explain that the Community was never only about economics and spoke about our joining the "European Community". In fact, we did not join the European Community—we joined the European Economic Community. If he asks his constituents, he will find that they believe that we principally joined a Common Market and were not involving ourselves in other political institutions. I believe that, until the Maastricht treaty is ratified, the title is still the EEC. If the treaty is not ratified, it will remain so.

Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend takes a great interest in these matters, but I advise him to have another look at the treaty of Rome. The fact that the Community was called "the European Economic Community" should not delude us into believing that that meant it had nothing to do with anything other than free trade. For heaven's sake, we left a free trade area to join the Community. We knew what the institutional structure was—

Mr. Bill Walker: rose—

Mr. Taylor: Please let me finish this point, and then I shall willingly give way.
We knew what the institutional structure was when we joined. We knew that the Community's ambitions covered a range of issues and could not be achieved by free trade alone. The institutional structure has been apparent since we joined, and we knew what we were in for. Indeed, the words "European Community" have been used in all except legal documents in the Community since 1978. We had nearly 10 years' warning of what we were doing when we signed the Single European Act.

Mr. Bill Walker: May I clarify a point? My hon. Friend was drawing the Reformation into his argument. What date was the Reformation in Britain?

Mr. Taylor: The Reformation took place before I entered Parliament. I shall not bandy points about the Reformation with my respected hon. Friend from Scotland because that would lead us into other difficulties, but it was a very long time ago.
If one considers the history of the Community since the mid-1950s, it is clear that all along we have been part of an economic and political community and that many of its objectives were to be attained by involving ourselves in institutional structures and political debate.
This group of amendments, which would wipe out the changes made at Maastricht, would still leave us with an intensely political community. We must ask ourselves whether that is an ideal situation, and the answer is no. In many cases, what people in this country determined had gone wrong since the Single European Act was passed was on the agenda for correction at Maastricht, and the British Government were able to put much of it right for themselves.
For example, since I came to the House in 1987 there have been many late-night debates about the misuse of Community funds. One of the problems was that no one had sufficient clout or sufficient evidence to point the finger. One of the changes made in the Maastricht treaty is that the Court of Auditors is given institutional status, which is an extremely good thing. Also, the European Parliament is given greater powers of scrutiny of monetary


and budgetary matters and can call the Commissioners to greater account. The Committee should welcome such developments.
Another objection that has been raised many times in the Committee is, "While we abide by the rules, chaps, the other lot don't." That is probably true, even though the rules by which we abide are often more onerous than those facing other countries because our civil servants have been particularly zealous in interpreting the rules in the first place. However, I shall leave that issue aside.
The treaty negotiated at Maastricht involves a strengthening of the powers of the European Court of Justice. Before there is shock and horror at the fact that the European Court of Justice should be involved at all, let us be clear—my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord) should pay careful attention to this—that by joining the European Community on 1 January 1973 we effectively accepted the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. It is not a new concept which has suddenly emerged.
The new set of regulations and powers given to the Community to put the single market in place after the Single European Act did not entail a consequent increase in the powers of the European Court of Justice to ensure that the rules were applied by those who agreed them. I hope that the British public will become aware that it is in our interests to apply the Maastricht treaty provisions because they answer one of the great public concerns, which is, why do we appear to be at a disadvantage compared to many other countries?

Mr. Richard Shepherd: There is no question but that the European Court of Justice existed in the 1970s, but one of the issues that concern some of us is that at that time its remit was strictly limited to the European Economic Community, but the change explicit in the treaty broadens the range of its jurisdiction. By removing the word "economic" we have given it a catholicity of ranges and remits. That is the fundamental difference which causes much anxiety to many Conservatives.

Mr. Taylor: If that were the case, I could understand such anxieties, but what my hon. Friend says is not technically correct. The European Court of Justice is given jurisdiction over everything in the treaty of Rome. Therefore, it is also given jurisdiction over everything that emerged from the Single European Act which is consolidated in the treaty of Rome. As I said, the Single European Act was not about a free trade area alone.
I understand my hon. Friend's concerns and there are issues over which I would not wish the European Court of Justice to have jurisdiction. If one reads the treaty of Maastricht, one finds that it does not have jurisdiction over the two new pillars being constructed on foreign and security policy and on matters of justice—to put it technically, those matters are not justiciable.

Sir Trevor Skeet: There is a complete misconception here. The Commission can be given jurisdiction. Matters can be referred to the European Court of Justice. With regard to the misconceptions that are being put forward by the Government, I can give references. First, the Commission is fully associated under articles J.9 and K.4(2), and it can draft legislation under article K.3(2). Furthermore, any legislation may be

implemented by special convention under article 100c. Therefore, my hon. Friend cannot say that these matters are beyond the jurisdiction of the court and the Commission.

Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend has made an interesting point, but he will be aware that, with regard to the pillar to which I am referring, the Commission is involved. But the Commission does not have the power of initiation, and that makes a very big difference. My hon. Friend will know that the European political co-operation procedure for foreign policy that was established under the Single European Act involved the Commission. But the European Court of Justice does not have power to render the elements of those two pillars justiciable in the way that it does in the case of the treaties of Rome. That is why, during this Committee stage, we are not faced with those matters of foreign security policy and justice. Those matters are outwith the Bill because they do not make amendments to the treaty of Rome.

Mr. Iain Duncan-Smith: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way as I realise that frequent breaks in a speech disturb its pattern. I must refer him back to the provisions relating to co-operation in the fields of justice and home affairs. Article K.9 is important as it says:
The Council, acting unanimously on the initiative of the Commission or a Member State, may decide to apply Article 100c of the Treaty".
Article 100c is therefore brought into play. I do not wish to be pedantic; I simply want to know what my hon. Friend thinks about that.

Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend confirms my point. In respect of such matters, Governments make unanimous decisions in the Council.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: It is opting in rather than opting out.

Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend comes to my rescue technically. The reality, however, is that this is very different from the unquestioned nature of the power of the European Court of Justice under the treaties of Rome. The precise fact is that the Maastricht treaty has clearly separated the other two pillars. Only with unanimous support under article K.9, which has been cited, will reference to the European Court of Justice come into effect. All these things are important.

Sir Trevor Skeet: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Taylor: Interventions make the debate exciting from my point of view, but they may not please other Members who wish to speak. I shall very happily give way in a moment.
Let me put all of this in context. The treaty of Rome and the Single European Act—taken together, parts of the treaties of Rome—are, in effect, an expression of Britain's acceptance that it is a part of an economic and political community and that certain decisions are more in the interests of the British people if there is co-operation through the institutions of the Community, sometimes even with qualified majority voting.
Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) made the point that, because of the changes that might be made under


economic and monetary union, we would see almost the end of Britain's nationhood. That, I think, is slightly over the top.
In economic and monetary terms, Britain is a particularly exposed nation as it is heavily dependent on trading. For a very long time, this country has been buffeted by changes in other countries. Whether or not we are in the exchange rate mechanism, monetary policies set in other countries determine monetary policies in this country. We cannot be isolated. Indeed, that is why, after we left the exchange rate mechanism in September, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, quite rightly, continued to make it clear that British monetary policy could not ignore the monetary policies being set in other countries and, indeed, that he could not set British monetary policy without watching the effect on the exchange rate. He was not attempting to excuse what had happened with regard to the ERM; he was simply recognising the facts.
It is very important to make the point that the Community itself has free movement of capital. No member country has the right to reimpose exchange controls. I accept that there have been breaches of this in the past few months. [Laughter.] Hon. Members should be cautious with their hilarity. Let them take note of how quickly the controls have been removed again. The reinstatement was temporary, and the controls were removed. Ireland is a notable example.
We were the first to abolish exchange controls, and we want the Community to have no exchange controls. However, the very important consequence is that capital finds the home that it most wants to find. If any of our domestic policies are out of line with those of other member countries, capital will find a different home. That applies to industry and to investors in Government bonds. A Government with a very high deficit cannot ignore the fact that some of the deficit may have to be funded abroad. That is the situation in which we currently find ourselves.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: The hon. Member is presenting a very interesting defence of what I regard as a pretty indefensible position. Does not he accept that if the principle by which the European economic policy is to be run is that capital will find the home that is most suitable to it, any social policies relating to housing, unemployment—or employment—and the environment are bound to take second place? Is not that at the very heart of this whole debate?

Mr. Taylor: I am very grateful to the hon. Member for his intervention. That is precisely the point I wish to make. The reality is that it is not a question whether we can isolate ourselves, whether we can protect British monetary policy, surrounding it with a barrier. The question is: what sorts of policies flow from the conclusion that we have to respect what other countries are doing? That leads to a series of political decisions. The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and I will differ as to how to protect social, housing and other benefits. Those are matters that become a series of priorities in the domestic debate.
With regard to the point that I think is significant, the hon. Gentleman will not like what I have to say. Yesterday, his hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) did a few political contortions in an effort to make the best of what might be a bad job. The significant

point is that the debate in the Community itself is political. Philosophies bring much to bear on the outcome even of negotiations on treaties. For example, it has not always been known to be strong Labour policy that the principle of an open-market economy, with free competition, should be enshrined in the treaty. But I am glad to say it is enshrined in article 3A because even socialist Governments, such as in France, have been strongly influenced by Conservative thinking over many years. They have been prepared to see right at the centre of the treaty statements with which Conservatives here strongly agree and which strengthen our desire to see the Maastricht treaty ratified as it enshrines many of the political values that we hold dear.
The European system of central banks and everything that flows from it have price stability as a principal tenet. Such things are acceptable to the Conservative party, but probably less acceptable to the Opposition. But that is party politics; it is not a question that arises from whether or not we are in the Community. The reality is that countries that are interdependent with regard to monetary policy do not sit down and ignore what is going on, but get stuck in.
My hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South spoke about the problems of sovereignty. The clever action taken over economic and monetary union was not that we negotiated ourselves an opt-out—I disagree with the Minister of State about the use of that phrase—but that we negotiated ourselves an opt-in. In the process, we maintain parliamentary sovereignty. It is important to remember in that respect that we have not bound a successor Parliament. Meanwhile, we have the right to examine the matter and to influence the institutions that will be set up, including their character and objectives.
I agree that, for those who want nothing to do with it, that is not much of a bonus. They might say, "We shall pack our bags and go home. We do not like this game." But those of us who recognise that we are totally interdependent in the Community—by the facts of the matter, many of which stem from the very action that hon. Members who are now against Maastricht support, including the 1992 programme and the single market—appreciate that we must influence the institutions. And in that process of influencing them, we must make sure that they have the right objectives, which is why I welcome many of the phrases that are used, such as "open market economy" and "free competition."

Mr. Austin Mitchell: rose—

Mr. Taylor: I give way to the hon. Gentleman because his tie is irresistible.

Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman's argument is jejune. There is a huge difference between being influenced by economic and monetary policies in other countries—we are influenced by them because we are part of the same world—and being required, even compelled, to maintain our exchange rate within 6 percentage points of DM2.95. Influence is inevitable, but compulsion to maintain relativity in exchange rates is a different matter. If the hon. Gentleman believes that we have influence because we are part of an institution, perhaps he will explain what influence we had on the reshaping, restructuring and realignment of the ERM by virtue of being a member of it.

Mr. Taylor: We are not compelled to do anything in the ERM. It was a British Government decision—I supported it; I am not fudging that—to enter and maintain that rate. We have discussed that subject at great length and I shall not today be deflected into discussing the rights and wrongs of German internal domestic policy, of which I have considerable criticisms, which I have aired to my German friends rather than simply in the House.
When we come to the third stage, the House will make its decision. Convergence is an important issue and many factors set out in the treaty about convergence do not make me feel uncomfortable. That does not mean that I would want us tomorrow to reduce our deficit to 3 per cent. of GDP. With that I would be uncomfortable. But I am not uncomfortable with the long-term objective, and no Government who, over a period—let us leave that undefined—believe in a balanced budget would feel uncomfortable with that.
That reinforces my argument because, given that we are interdependent in the Community—only in the Community is there the Single European Act consequence of the free movement of capital to which I referred—convergence is a desirable objective. There are various means by which to create convergence, and we could discuss that at length, but, given that convergence is a desirable objective, I have no problem with it in relation to the treaty.

Mr. Knapman: My hon. Friend will agree that we Conservatives believe in market forces. Is he saying that there is a right rate for any market? If so, what is the right rate for the pound to the deutschmark at any time? If there is no right rate for a market, there is no right time to join an exchange rate mechanism, and the country cannot afford to go through that again.

Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend and I have differed in many debates about the merits of managed currencies and exchange rate mechanisms. I suggest that it is inconceivable that, in a market with free flows of capital, there is no policy towards exchange rates. I fear that we must continue to differ.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: rose—

Mr. Taylor: My generosity in having given way will be criticised because of the length of my speech, so I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not give way further.
The Maastricht treaty gives Britain many opportunities, the anticipation of some of which have appeared over the years on our party political agendas. For example, an aspect of the treaty is that we try to bring the whole workings of the Community closer to its citizens. We shall later have a chance to debate the technicalities of subsidiarity or minimum intervention, and I shall not deal with that now.
Let us not ignore the fact that there are several initiatives in the treaty for creating greater openness and accountability, for giving British citizens the ability to refer to an ombudsman cases of maladministration in the Community and the greater powers of the European Parliament. Also we should take into account the stress on national Parliaments. It is the first time that such an ability has arisen. It is up to the Committee to interpret it and I welcome its appearance in the treaty. We should be pleased at the inclusion of those matters and support them. They strengthen matters and I urge the Committee not to throw

those gains away simply because a vociferous few here are concerned with the institutions which were set up in the 1950s and which we joined in the 1970s.
The Community will not remain static. The treaty that we are discussing has considerable benefits for Britain, not least the fact that the move to ever-closer union, to which we have been attached since the 1970s, can now be seen to take a wider route than it took previously, for there can now be an intergovernmental route to closer union. That is what the pillars are about on foreign policy and justice matters.
It has been shown in the treaties of Rome that the centralising instinct and inevitability that some people—I am not among them—wish to see in the Community have been arrested through the principle of subsidiarity. It is not a question whether on every issue we can define that down to the last dot and comma. The implication of what is on the face of the treaty means realistically that habits in the Community will change—they already are changing—and we have seen flesh being put on that principle at Birmingham and Edinburgh.
The Maastricht treaty has many advantages for Britain in areas about which hon. Members rightly believe that we should take particular care. It avoids a pre-commitment at a future date to a single currency and economic and monetary union. The interest of the House is protected in the treaty. We shall have the opportunity to debate that later. As is stated in the Treasury memorandum in the appendix to the report of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee, we are not automatically bound to rejoin the ERM simply by ratifying the treaty.
I put my cards on the table. I believe that some form of ERM is inevitable. Constitutionally, the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South on that issue do not hold water, and the Financial Secretary made that clear in the debate yesterday. I urge the House to address the treaty as part of what we are already committed to and as a measure that strengthens, rather than weakens, British interests, which does not undermine the position of the House, and which has advantages that we should do more to explain to the British people, who would then perhaps understand why we should be scrutinising the Bill rather than moving towards a referendum. The House is the right place in which to examine the Bill, and I hope that that will continue to be the case during the Committee stage.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: The hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) and I disagree about almost everything in economics and politics, but there is one aspect of his speech with which I agree. Rightly and properly, frankly and openly, the hon. Gentleman described the character of the treaty, and said that it represented his monetarist political values. I too have come to that conclusion, and that is why I oppose the monetarist nature of the convergence cum monetary union in the treaty.
The hon. Gentleman's speech was open and honest, and it showed the differences between us—the reasons why I shall not support the inclusion of title II. At the heart of the treaty, and at the heart of title II, lies monetary union—monetary union, moreover, of a particular character, which the hon. Member for Esher sensibly and openly described as taking a monetarist route.
During the past day or so of debate, it has been said that at least the treaty provides enough flexibility, and enough of an alternative opportunity to pursue convergence and monetary union by other processes. In that connection, much has been said about the famous article 2. I do not need to dwell long on that, because my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) gave us a useful critical and textual analysis of it. I shall be rather more generous than he was about article 2, because I recognise that some of its wording—the references to high employment, social cohesion, and the rest—means that its tone and character are—

Mr. Austin Mitchell: An improvement.

Mr. Rowlands: Yes, an improvement—although, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli said, even article 2 contains more than a germ of monetarist thinking.
I shall show that, unfortunately, from that point the quality of article 2 is somewhat demoted as the processes and nature of the draft monetary union are revealed to us. My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) and, to a certain extent, my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) said that there was a route to monetary union based on growth, investment and jobs, and that the terms of the treaty made it possible to hold those objectives as central.
I have to tell my hon. Friends that I do not believe that that is feasible in anything like the time scale envisaged for the treaty. Such concepts of growth, and convergence based on those sentiments, would require a continuous consistent economic policy to be followed by 12 democratically elected Governments over a considerable period.
I have spent nearly 25 years in the House arguing for some convergence between my constituency and the United Kingdom average. One could have thought that convergence of the economies of regions and communities within one country would be a simple task compared with convergence involving 12 countries, but I have to report to the House that, according to the latest figures, which relate to 1991 or 1992, the county of Mid Glamorgan, part of which I represent, has only 72 per cent. of the United Kingdom GDP per head—and the ratio is getting worse. The figure has fallen from 79 per cent. to 72 per cent.
Even within the United Kingdom, I have seen no convergence between the community that I represent and the rest of the United Kingdom; I have seen a divergence of economic success, wealth and performance—so I find it hard to believe in convergence. I may be unduly pessimistic, but I think that. I am realistic in believing that convergence and monetary union are not likely to be achieved by the dream route, with investment and jobs at its centre, in anything like the time scale envisaged in the treaty.
Furthermore, that is not what is on offer in the treaty. Although article 2 sets an improved tone, after that its role is demoted both in the process of moving towards monetary union and in the final nature of the union achieved.
This is a Committee stage, and it is the Committee's task to analyse what is before it, both in the Bill and in the treaty. As the debate is about title II, I shall briefly take the Committee through what happens to the good sentiments

of article 2 in the subsequent processes of title II—how it is valued, how it is eventually assessed, and its final role and function.
By article 3a, paragraph 3, there is a new set of criteria, and there are new guiding principles that will come into force. The language of the definition in paragraph 3 is interesting. I have learnt to read and understand the language of such documents, and I hope that I understand article 3a, paragraph 3, all too well. Article 3, paragraph 1, contains a reference to the contents of article 2 as generally a good thing, but by paragraph 3 the guiding principles that "shall entail compliance"—they are not simply principles to be generally promoted, or desirable objectives; they have to be complied with—are a narrower band:
stable prices, sound public finances and monetary conditions and a sustainable balance of payments.
During the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool yesterday, there were some interesting exchanges. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) ever so gently suggested that the language of the treaty was monetarist—possibly the language of the 1930s. He was accused of being a senior non-modernising member of the party, and his idea was dismissed.
Ironically, I had been sitting here wondering where I had already heard in a consistent form the language and principles of that paragraph—which are repeated throughout all the articles. I had just finished an interesting study and analysis of the way in which Whitehall handled the dreadful problems faced by my constituents in the 1930s, and when my right hon. Friend mentioned the 1930s it triggered off a connection with that research.
The language and principles of article 3a, paragraph 3, resembled the weekly and monthly statements of Chancellor of the Exchequer and Prime Minister Chamberlain, which rejected any form of public works or deficit financing on any scale for the salvation of communities such as Merthyr Tydfil. The language is not coded; it is an openly described set of monetarist principles. By the time we reach article 3, it is those principles which have to be complied with. They are not simply promoted as desirable objectives; they are the criteria which must bite.
By article 3, we have found out that the pleasures and joys of the sentiments behind article 2 have been put in a slightly different context, and now stand in a rather different relationship. As the hon. Member for Esher openly and honourably stated, that series of monetarist principles, which he thinks should be at the heart of the process towards monetary union, are statements of his political values.
Those monetarist principles left my constituency in the 1980s—as they left it in the 1930s—to suffer increasing unemployment. I do not intend to vote for a treaty and a process towards monetary union that enshrines those principles. I refuse to do so. I am sorry that some of my hon. Friends feel that they can manipulate that treaty and that process. I do not believe that we shall be able to do that. For 30 years, my predecessor and I have argued the case. We still find ourselves not converged but diverged in our economic activity, even compared to the level in the United Kingdom.
I do not believe that some of the desired objectives in article 2 will be carried through in the processes to achieve


monetary union. Article 3a dilutes the sensible objectives of article 2. I tried to track the role of article 2 through the subsequent articles. In other words, I tried to track the general and desirable tasks in article 2 through the remainder of the articles to the point at which monetary union is achieved. I then looked at article 102a. Of course, that is where the cat is let out of the bag in terms of the function and role of article 2 in the process of monetary union.
We have all been taught to draft in different ways. Words are what we live with; words are our trade. I had a fantastic schooling. I spent four and a half years in the real school of drafting—indeed, in one of the ultimate factories of drafting in which one does one's apprenticeship: the Foreign Office which does nothing but draft.
By the time we reach article 102a on economic and monetary policy, the function and role of article 2, with its desirable objectives of cohesion and high employment, have been changed. Article 102a says:
Member States shall conduct their economic policies with a view to contributing to the achievement of the objectives of the Community, as defined in Article 2,
It is simply "a view to contributing". If the drafting of that article is not a product of King Charles street, it should have been. If it was not a product of King Charles street, our continental friends have learnt the British art of drafting weasel words to cover the diminution of the importance of article 2 as part of the monetary process.
Although the desirable objective in article 2 is diminished in article 102a, the monetarist principles of article 3a3 are still there to be complied with. So the balance between the joys of article 2 and compliance with the monetary principles of article 3 are now carried through. One is "a view to contributing to", and the other is undoubtedly something which must be complied with or else.

Mr. Clive Betts: There are two ways to read the treaty. One way is to read it, as my hon. Friend has done, from the beginning—that may be the logical way to read through a treaty—and to say that article 3a changes the definition, especially from paragraph 1 to paragraph 3, where the stable price element is introduced, and then to read further and say that it is a matter of having regard to the words used.
If one reads the treaty backwards, looking at each of the minor elements with reference to article 2, which is the essential task of the Community, one can say that article 102a is a subsidiary of article 3a, because that is how it is written. One can also say that article 3 is a subsidiary of article 3a.

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. While I have been in the Chamber and, indeed, while I have been watching the monitor during the debate, I have noticed that interventions seem to be very long. Some of them are tantamount to speeches, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear that in mind.

Mr. Rowlands: I understand the point that my hon. Friend is making. Although it may occasionally be justified and useful to read a document backwards, I have not found that so. If I understand my hon. Friend's point,

and if one looks at the structure of the treaty and the title, at the beginning there is a series of general statements, and then a series of processes is described in detail within a time scale. The series of processes then reach the point at which a group of states will have converged sufficiently to achieve monetary union.
I do not think that hon. Members should read the treaty backwards. It must be read in a forward-looking way because the processes towards monetary union unfold in a series of articles which precede article 102a. The principles have been laid down in articles 2 and 3a. My argument is that, by the time one reads article 102a, the balance in the sentiment, tone, direction and objectives in article 2 have changed to a rather strict monetarist process. If I am allowed to continue, I shall show how that unfolds almost exclusively so.

Mr. Marlow: In a broader context, has not the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) hit the nail on the head when he says that there are many different ways of reading the treaty? That has enabled my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) to plead for reassurances and tell the Committee how everything will be all right on the night, how none of our powers or our sovereignty will be undermined and how we will be strengthened. At the same time we will allow the commissioner and his friends, the Euro-fanatics, to take all powers from the House as time goes by. The institutions of Europe, the court and the Commission, will take those powers from us. Hon. Members can read the treaty two ways.

Mr. Rowlands: I do not agree that we can read the treaty two ways. It is very clear, and the hon. Member for Esher described it well. The treaty describes monetarist principles and the processes towards monetary union. Monetary union is the only principle of the treaty. I am simply saying that a number of my hon. Friends have argued about the value and importance of article 2 to defend the process.
I am seeking to demonstate how article 2 is progressively devalued as the treaty describes the processes to reach the ultimate point at which the member states decide whether they have achieved a degree of convergence. In article 3, the Commission is given a new power—at least, I think that it is a new power.
We have talked a lot about subsidiarity. This morning, in the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, the Minister of State and his officials admitted that the principles of subsidiarity cannot and do not apply in any shape or form to stage three of monetary union. In other words, the principle of subsidiarity, which is the central feature of the treaty and stage three of monetary union, will not apply. It is a centralising process, not a process which is subject to subsidiarity.

Mr. Garel-Jones: In the Select Committee this morning, the deputy legal adviser to the Foreign Office made it perfectly clear that article 3b did inform the whole treaty, despite what the hon. Gentleman says.

Mr. Rowlands: If I remember correctly—we will read the text—evidence was previously given to us by professionals. I simply asked Mr. Jay whether subsidiarity would apply to the principles of monetary union in the stage three process, and I think he said no. It was only consistent with other evidence which we have taken.

Mr. Jenkin: In a way, it does apply to monetary union because, by reason of the scale of effects, it is something which is better done at the centre. That demonstrates how subsidiarity can be as much a centralising concept as a decentralising one.

Mr. Rowlands: That is a perceptive point, because we speak of subsidiarity as a one-way process. As the hon. Gentleman rightly points out, it could be a two-way process. Whereas we talk a great deal about the potential decentralising of powers under the subsidiarity provisions of the treaty, alongside it is a hugely centralising process which is necessary to achieve monetary union. I hope that I am not vulgarising the exchange that we had in the Select Committee this morning. In the Select Committee, we talked about, dare I use the term, Mr. Delors's "little list" of devolved powers. We asked the Ministers who came before us to produce a little list of the new powers and responsibilities that the Commission will obtain under the treaty. Article 103 of title II includes, if not a new, an enhanced role for the Commission.
The Commission will almost have the power to play the role of a European International Monetary Fund. It will be in the job of multi-surveillance of every nation's economy and performance. That is the function that is provided in article 103. Rather than reducing the functions and roles of the Commission, the treaty enhances them. To borrow another phrase, the Commission will go into every nook and cranny of a nation's economic and monetary life. That is what is established in article 103.
The other interesting feature of the process of multi-surveillance is that the treaty does not contain a single reference to the Commission looking to see whether unemployment is increasing, whether there is any form of social cohesion and whether there is any real protection. The Commission's function of multi-surveillance in the process of monetary union has no meaning in respect of matters such as unemployment. The multi-surveiliance function is already essentially monetarist.

Dr. Roger Berry: Is my hon. Friend aware that the recent Treasury report on the conduct of economic policy, to which reference has already been made, says in paragraph 106, referring to Maastricht:
A strategy for deficit reduction in the medium-term is required under the terms of the Maastricht treaty."?
It is difficult, if not impossible, to find in the report commitments to employment policy and growth as a result of Maastricht. The emphasis is on deficit reduction.

Mr. Rowlands: Absolutely so. That is why examination of the text does not justify the weight that some of my colleagues have put on article 2. Employment and growth are not the major aims which determine the nature of the process which will lead towards monetary union.
In article 103, the Commission is given the role of conducting multilateral surveillance of an individual nation's economy. It is little wonder that the Commission is willing to give up extra powers. It will have a full-time job involving itself in every nook and cranny of the economic life of nations.

Mr. George Robertson: Has my hon. Friend ever asked himself why, if the prescriptions which he says are the central feature of the treaty are so evil and unlikely to lead to growth and, according to his diagnosis, are likely to lead

to a worse position, every socialist and social democratic party in Europe, and every trade union in Europe outside and within Britain, is in favour of the treaty?

Mr. Rowlands: Because these are matters of judgment. My judgment on reading the text of the treaty is clear, and it is evidently shared by all those who have spoken tonight. The running thesis of the treaty and the process of monetary union are based on narrow monetarist principles. I cannot answer my hon. Friend's question. My hon. Friend spends more time than me on the matter. He has not damaged my case. Others might not agree with me, but my hon. Friend has not taken me on about how I interpret the text. He has not told me that I am reading the treaty wrongly. If he thinks that I have got a point of fact wrong, he should tell me. He simply tells me that others have different views.
Let us examine the text. The text of article 104c on excessive deficits does not say that one reason why a country might have such a deficit is because it wishes to reduce unemployment. Article 2 does not deal with excessive deficits. By the time we reach excessive deficits in article 104c, it is clear that the route to monetary union is a monetarist one.

Mr. George Robertson: My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) dealt with several of the points that my hon. Friend makes, countered them, and argued strongly with some of the interventions that were made. I simply ask my hon. Friend, in a shorthand form at this stage in the debate, to remember that it may not be the case that he is right and everyone else in the 12 European Community countries is wrong. It might be the other way round. I simply ask him to reflect on that.

Mr. Rowlands: I hope that my hon. Friend thinks that he might find himself in that position, too. I am defending my case and making my points based on the text before me. My hon. Friend has not once yet told me that I am reading the text wrongly. I cannot be responsible for the company he keeps: I can only say how I read and understand the text.
By the time I reach paragraph 2 of article 105 on monetary policy, I find no vestige of reference to article 2. My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) said paragraph 1 contained a reference to article 2, but even he had to admit that the opening sentence of paragraph 1 of article 5 says that the primary objective of the European central bank is to maintain price stability. It is not to implement the objectives of article 2.
Again we have the words:
with a view to contributing to the achievement of the objectives of … Article 2.
Those are the weasel words about the good things in article 2 by the time we reach the functions and role of the European central bank.

Mr. Stuart Randall: Is one of the reasons why there is such support for the treaty among social democrats and socialists in the EC the fact that the treaty is not a policy document but a framework? It is a framework for decision-making—[HON MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, it is. In essence it is not a policy document. The policies will come from that document. I suggest to my hon. Friend—I shall be interested to hear what he has to say—that article 2 will be the key article in determining what sort of policies we have.

Mr. Rowlands: It is a treaty. It will have to be ratified. It places clear, specifically defined obligations on the Governments of member states. It contains language which I have just described, which implies, "Thou shalt comply in this or that respect and apply these principles." I have identified those principles of compliance and how they differ from the objectives of article 2. I have compared the language of article 2 with that of the rest of the treaty. One language is of policy; the other is of compliance.
The treaty contains detailed obligations which will force us to adopt a particular method of achieving a particular form of monetary union. I object to that. I hope that my hon. Friend will not vote for the treaty on the basis that it is a framework within which a country can have different policies. It is a clearly defined route to monetary union, based on a series of narrowly defined principles of monetarism.

Dr. Berry: Is my hon. Friend aware of a policy document which has just been issued by the new Government of the Republic of Ireland, which states:
Budgetary policy will therefore be based on the overriding requirements of the Maastricht treaty. Prospective participants are required to adhere strictly to an annual general government deficit on around 3 per cent. or less of GDP"?
So it goes on. That is a specific policy document embracing the principles of Maastricht.

Mr. Rowlands: My hon. Friend underlines the point. If my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) wants another illustration of the point that the treaty is not simply a framework but an explicit series of obligations, I recommend that he reads article 108. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West said that the treaty is merely a framework, but it is not. Article 108 states that, during stage 2 of economic and monetary union, this Parliament must pass an Act to change the statutes of our national bank. That is compulsory. It does not state that we may do so if we wish—it is not permissive.
What is even worse is what might happen if the House does not want to pass such an Act. Why should we legislate in that way? I do not believe that the Bank of England should be made autonomous. My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East has described what he thought might be constructive alterations to the statutes of our national bank, but I wonder whether his suggestions would be possible under the treaty.
8 pm
Article 108 states not only that we must legislate to change the statutes but that we must do so in a particular way. Such an Act would have to be compatible with the statutes on the European central bank laid down in the treaty.
I do not know whether the provisions of the treaty should be defined as obligations or merely as a framework, but in my language, article 108 forces us to legislate to change the character of the Bank of England and its relationship with the Government. When such a Bill comes before the House, we will be in a curious position. Hon. Members on both sides might seek to move amendments to change the proposed character of the new Act, but Ministers will tell us that we cannot do so, as that would not comply with the protocol and the provisions in the Maastricht treaty regarding the European central bank.
I cannot think of a better illustration of loss of sovereignty, in the way that this Parliament has always interpreted sovereignty. I am a bit of a parliamentary historian and have written about the evolution of Parliament in the 17th century, the original arguments for the creation of the Bank of England and the tonnage and poundage legislation of 1694.
Whatever else we used to think that this place was all about, it was about the sovereign right to legislate. As a result of article 108, during the next 18 months the Government will have to introduce a Bill to change the relationship between the state and the Bank of England, and that Bill will have to be compatible with the protocols and provisions on the European Community bank laid down in the treaty.
If one wills the end, one must will the means. The alteration of the character and nature of our banking statutes is one of the means for us to achieve monetary union as laid down by the protocol in the treaty.
I want the Financial Secretary to answer two questions which fall within his patch. Presumably, if we pass the Bill, unless the Danish people throw it out in their referendum, the treaty will be ratified, and stage 2 of EMU will start next January. That is only 11 months away, not in 1996 or 1997. During stage 2, legislation along the lines that I have described will be introduced. First, will the Treasury Minister tell us whether it is the Treasury and the Government's best estimate that stage 2 will start on time?
The opening paragraph of chapter 4—"Transitional Provisions"—states:
The second stage for achieving economic and monetary union shall begin on 1 January 1994.
What if it does not? Will the treaty have to be amended, or will powers be created to override it? Does the Minister think that that deadline is feasible? If that is the deadline in agreeing the treaty, we will have to introduce legislation to amend our national banking statutes.
In an interesting passage of his speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East described some of his thoughts about how he would change the statutes. I have not had a chance to consider all of them, but I should like the Minister to study my hon. Friend's interesting reference and say whether his ideas would be compatible with the provisions in the protocol on the European central bank, because that will define the limits of our legislation and the new banking Bill.
I can think of no better illustration to show my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West that the treaty is not merely a framework but that it contains a series of explicit obligations.

Mr. Randall: They are declarations.

Mr. Rowlands: No, they are not.
I realise that I have spoken for a long time, and would like to give other hon. Members a chance. Finally, the cat is out of the bag when one reads the last clause describing the third stage of monetary union. Article 109j lays down the full criteria to decide whether convergence has been achieved and monetary union can go ahead. It does not contain a single reference to article 2 or to unemployment levels.
In his excellent speech, my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli said that one could achieve convergence and monetary union, under the provisions in the treaty, while there was 20 per cent. unemployment in Merthyr Tydfil or in the United Kingdom. Unemployment


would not be a factor to decide whether the country was in a fit state to qualify for monetary union. The four criteria listed in article 109j are all based on monetarist principles and have nothing to do with the general propositions in article 2 about cohesion or high unemployment levels.
We are being asked to buy a type of monetary union which must be achieved by a particular process. I represent a constituency that has suffered too often from such ideas and economic principles for me to support the Bill. Even if I did not have that instinct, I would say that we should object to the Bill because the treaty is hugely centralising. Monetary union will create more centralisation. Even if a sufficient cohesion fund is created, it will have to be administered and disbursed centrally.
Secondly, the treaty is hugely restrictive. One of the major tasks for the Community is to reach out and reinforce the democratic structures of the Czechs, the Hungarians and the countries of central Europe. Much that is in the treaty will make it infinitely more difficult for a meaningful political and economic relationship between the central European countries and the Community, with its monetary union.
The treaty does not outline the shape of the Europe that I want in the late 20th century. The treaty is the last vestige of a process that began in the mid-1950s during the cold war. The creation of the original Community was as much a product of the division of Europe and the cold war as of any great dream of a reunited Europe. Many of its principles and ideas were based on that.
I believe that we have come to the end of that phase, as the cold-war division of Europe has come to an end. We should now look for alternative routes for economic and political union within the structure of an economic common market and an intergovernmental structure of co-operation of the kind represented in the second half of the treaty.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), said yesterday that I would try to intervene briefly today to speak on aspects of the treaty that fall within the Treasury's sphere of responsibility as they relate to economic and monetary union.

Mr. Bill Walker: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. Have Ministers, in their attempt to answer some of the points that have been made, told you how they hope to answer points that have not been made? Many of us who have been here for three days have not been called to speak and the matters that I wish to raise have not been touched on at all yet.

The First Deputy Chairman: No, the Government have not told me that.

Mr. Dorrell: Perhaps my hon. Friend should reflect on the fact that our limited memories mean that we shall deal with the issue in tranches.
As befits somebody who lives in the Victorian splendour of the Foreign Office, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State has spoken about pillars and architecture. As somebody who occupies what was

described in the papers yesterday as the "linoleum palace", I propose to speak solely about the engineering of the Community—its economic policy.
The hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) started his remarks yesterday by referring to the Community's objectives defined in article 2 of the treaty of Maastricht. His example was followed by several of his hon. Friends. The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) and the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), from extremely different standpoints, both started their speeches by discussing the objectives defined in article 2. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) has also followed their example, and I am therefore happy to follow them down that road.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Llanelli that three key factors arising from article 2 would be common ground on both sides of the Committee, among supporters and opponents of Maastricht. Article 2 commits the Community to achieving high employment. The right hon. Gentleman had fun discussing the difference between employment and unemployment.

Mr. Marlow: I am sorry to make this point now, but I was speaking to some hon. Friends who had just entered the Chamber when my hon. Friend the Minister stood up. As he will know, I have tabled a couple of amendments, but have not had an opportunity to discuss them yet. Other hon. Members have also tabled amendments. Will my hon. Friend assure the House that a Minister will respond to the debate once all those who wish to speak have spoken, particularly those who have not yet put forward their amendments?

Mr. Dorrell: As I said in answer to a similar intervention, we are dealing with the Bill in tranches. Having listened to the debate, I thought that there was sufficient meat for me to deal with some of the concerns expressed and to put the Government's view on the points that have already been made.
I was going through the three key elements defined in article 2, picking out the key objectives of high employment, raising the standard of living and the quality of life of Community residents, and the achievement of sustainable, non-inflationary growth. Those objectives should be, and largely are, supported on both sides of the Committee. Although they may be shared objectives, the discussions on the methods by which they are achieved have revealed considerable differences. Several hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have alleged that the treaty and the institutions envisaged within it contain a deflationary bias that would make it impossible for such a Community to deliver its objective of high employment and the other side of that coin, which is low unemployment.
May I concentrate the attention of the House first on the evidence that has been adduced to support the assertion that the institutions envisaged by the treaty contain a deflationary bias or make impossible the objectives defined in article 2? The evidence that has been adduced in support of that argument during the debate is, to put it mildly, flimsy. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney treated us to a long speech based on the proposition that there is a clear division between a monetarist approach to monetary management. Although he did not define it, he implied that an alternative approach to monetary management could better deliver


the objectives of article 2. The assumption that lay behind this speech took place more than 10 years ago, and most of his arguments have now become out of date.

Mr. Leighton: Is not the proof of the pudding in the eating? The first stage of economic and monetary union was the exchange rate mechanism, which made interest rates higher than was needed for the purposes of the domestic economy. That was deflationary, and unemployment rose by 1.1 million during that period. Does not that prove that the ERM was deflationary?

Mr. Dorrell: The point that I was seeking to develop was whether there could be a choice between the delivery of growth and high employment, and the controlling of Government deficits. In one or two intervention, the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), who is not in the Chamber at present, appeared to believe that the higher the budget deficit, the faster the rate of growth. Surely the experience in the past 25 years of Governments of both political parties has tested that theory to destruction. High budget deficits undermine the delivery of employment and growth objectives. We embrace the commitment to proper control of budget deficits that is enshrined within the treaty, not because it is in the treaty but because experience over many years has shown that failure to observe the disciplines of proper control of Government deficits undermines the capacity of any economy, not just this economy, to deliver objectives of growth and high employment.

Mr. Denzil Davies: The Minister may be right or wrong. Much of the issue is theory and fashion. Whether he is right or wrong, why entrench one view in a treaty that can never be changed except with the consent of 12 nations? Why give economic theory such codification?

Mr. Dorrell: The right hon. Gentleman may describe it as theory, but I do not believe that the experiments with the approach of the hon. Member for Walsall, North are theory. We have seen repeatedly that failure to control budget deficits has undermined the capacity of this country and other countries to deliver their objectives.

Mr. Michael Spicer: Governments are elected to take a view about budget deficits. Labour Governments think that one can expand budget deficits, whereas Conservative Governments generally take the opposite view. It is not up to a treaty to determine that matter.

Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is not quite right, because some Opposition Members have questioned whether it is possible or even desirable to deliver sustainable, non-inflationary growth. For example, yesterday we had a contribution from the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), who said:
article 3a(2) states that the primary objective of economic policy is 'to maintain price stability'. That has never been an objective of the Labour party". —[Official Report, 13 January 1993; Vol. 216, c. 946–47.]
There is ample evidence to support that assertion.
In one of the last sentences that he spoke yesterday the right hon. Member for Llanelli said:
We cannot have non-inflationary growth in today's western capitalist economies."—[Official Report, 13 January 1993; Vol. 216, c. 1011.]
I do not believe that that assertion is true. The experience of successfully run economies, both in Europe and further afield, flatly contradicts the assertion made by the right hon. Gentleman last night.

Mr. Denzil Davies: There may be one or two such economies, but will the Minister give examples of countries in western Europe that have achieved non-inflationary growth since the war?

Mr. Dorrell: I shall give an example, but I should be cautious about doing so too often as I think that most people in this country get bored of having Germany quoted at them as an example. Germany has achieved a lower average rate of inflation and a higher average rate of growth than us.

Mr. Radice: I thought that I was on the same side of the argument as the Minister, but I fear that he is losing me. It is true that it is important to have a low inflation rate. It is sensible to have rules on budget deficits if we are to have a single currency. But if there is a recession and a high level of unemployment across Europe, there is a case for counter-recessionary measures. That was precisely what was agreed at Edinburgh. Surely the hon. Gentleman is not arguing against that case. I hope that he is not.

Mr. Dorrell: I am not arguing against the proposition that budget deficits fluctuate according to the state of economic activity. It would be hard for me to do so.
I can quote no better authority for that view than Lord Lawson, who is not always associated with such a view. The Committee will remember that he made a speech during the 1980s, from which he quotes extensively in his recently published book, supporting the assertion that budget deficits fluctuate according to the level of economic activity. That is the answer to the issue raised earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher), who was concerned to ensure that a budget deficit objective did not have to be cast in stone or at a fixed level every year, regardless of the state of economic activity.

Mr. Jenkin: The important distinction in the legal enforceability of the treaty is whether one is trying to achieve a deficit of less than 3 per cent. or wilfully avoiding achieving it. Without giving away any Budget secrets, will my hon. Friend say whether the Government will be trying to achieve a 3 per cent. budget deficit in the coming financial year? Alternatively, will we be able to interpret their actions as those of a Government who are wilfully avoiding doing so because that is in Britain's economic interests?

Mr. Dorrell: We shall be trying to avoid an excessive budget deficit, as the treaty requires us to do, not because of any treaty obligation, but because we know that that is the only sensible way of running an economy.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: I thank the Minister for giving way. I want to intervene because he has referred to me in his argument.
Surely the essence of democratic decision making is to try to hold a balance between the employment level and the inflation level. Governments are continually trying to make such judgments. Economic policy becomes


deflationary when Governments become obsessed with reducing inflation and increase unemployment. That is exactly what the Government have done—their fight against inflation has become paramount. Surely the essence of article 3a is that price stability is the paramount objective of economic policy. It states that member states and the Community should pursue the general economic policies of the Community only in so far as they are
without prejudice to this objective.

Mr. Dorrell: The reason for that is that we recognise, as do the signatories of the treaty, that the delivery of the wider objectives are not assisted, but jeopardised, by a failure to maintain stable prices. The answer to the point raised by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby was provided, with some distinction, by his hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East, when he said:
My hon. Friend referred to price stability. It would be interesting to hear his arguments in favour of price instability"—
I agree with the hon. Member for Oxford, East.
I have yet to see the benefits of price instability to working people and, in particular, to pensioners. There is no merit in price instability."—[Official Report, 13 January 1993; Vol. 216, c. 947.]
That is the answer to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: That is an insane argument. The essence of capitalist and market economies is that prices will fluctuate—that is the nature of such economies. Nobody is arguing for price stability in the sense that prices do not fluctuate. Price stability in this context, refers to the obsession with keeping inflation as low as possible—zero inflation—which has existed for a long time. When governed by such an obsession, that aim must be paramount over other Community objectives, including full employment.

Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the efficient functioning of the market economy depends on the ability of prices to fluctuate. It does not depend on the ability of the value of money to fluctuate. The effect of a progressive decline in the value of money—the rate of inflation—during the past 20 years has been to undermine economic performance and the delivering of social objectives in this country.

Mr. Marlow: My hon. Friend talks about excessive budget deficits. He will be familiar with article 104c, which states that the Commission shall
examine compliance with budgetary discipline on the basis of the following two criteria:
(a) whether the ratio of the planned or actual government deficit to gross domestic product exceeds a reference value, unless
—either the ratio has declined substantially and continuously and reached a level that comes close to the reference value"—
3 per cent.—
or, alternatively, the excess over the reference value is only exceptional and temporary and the ratio remains close to the reference value".
Which of those two criteria will the Government satisfy with regard to next year's Budget?

Mr. Dorrell: Although we accept, for reasons that I have given—which have nothing to do with the treaty of Maastricht—the desirability of avoiding excessive budgetary deficits, we do not at this stage accept the legitimacy of the Commission or any other European institution's

authority to require us to pursue a budgetary policy that is not of our own choosing. That marks the success of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in delivering the British protocol. None of the compulsory provisions of the treaty of Maastricht relating to monetary union apply to the United Kingdom unless and until the House passes an Act of Parliament to determine that they should apply.
Many of the speeches made in Committee have avoided the fact that this country is not committed to moving to stage 3 of economic and monetary union. My hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) sought to argue that the defence negotiated by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—

Mr. Rowlands: The Minister's case has moved. He did not answer the question posed by the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), but merely said that there was an opt-out provision and we did not have to take action if we did not want to do so. Do the Government and the Minister consider it a desirable objective to belong to the monetary union?

Mr. Dorrell: We have made it perfectly clear, as we did throughout the negotiations, that we regard that as a question which is impossible to answer at this stage. That case was not accepted by any of our partners, except Denmark. That is why Britain and Denmark secured provisions within the treaty to allow them to take that decision when the necessary information was available. It is not now available. That is why we have reserved our ability to make that decision at a much later date.

Mr. Leighton: The Minister has been very generous in giving way, which makes for a good debate. On the point about price stability, is he aware that the Governor of the Bank of England, in speaking quite recently to the eastern Confederation of British Industry, said that we could have achieved price stability this year but it would have meant too much deflation? So he and the Government decided not to go for price stability this year because it would have meant too much of a recession. Should we not have four objects of economic policy? One is as low inflation as possible, but the others are balance of payments equilibrium, economic growth and high employment, not just going for one.

Mr. Dorrell: I do not want to cover that ground again, but that is exactly what I said in defining what I saw as the key objectives set out in article 2.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: Why would my hon. Friends want to legislate for convergency criteria, which will create great pain, when they do not necessarily know at this stage whether they want to enter into the third stage? Take, for instance, the average on interest rates. With good fortune and if the Government take their courage in their hands, we shall bring down interest rates much faster than the European average. We shall be well outside the convergence criteria on those, and that creates a problem. The treaty says that we are meant to be within the range of 2 per cent. of the average of the European convergence criteria, so why would we legislate for the second stage?

Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is not quite right, because I do not think that it is possible for us to be outside the


convergence criteria on interest rates by being below; the convergence criterion is to be within 2 per cent. of the lowest. But I will check that.
The point about the convergence criteria is that they come into play only if we choose to go to stage 3 of economic and monetary union. I agree with the right hon. Member for Llanelli, who, although he made it clear that he was opposed to a single currency, also said—I do not think that I misreport him—that if we choose to go to a single currency, the convergence criteria defined in the treaty make some sense as criteria for delivering a single currency. That is a point of view that is supported by somebody who opposes the basic argument that I am trying to advance.
So my hon. Friend is not on to a good point when he concentrates on the legislative nature of convergence criteria. They merely describe conditions which individual member states have to satisfy to become members of a single currency, because without coming within that cone of convergence there is no realistic prospect of a single currency working.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: That is the very point: why does one then need to legislate for them? They are criteria which the Government have it in their power to pursue in any event. It does not require the enactment into United Kingdom legislation and the decision can be made on the basis of the proper management of the economy. It is not necessary, therefore, as I understand the argument of the Financial Secretary, to legislate. So surely the Financial Secretary could accept the amendments before us on this point.

Mr. Dorrell: The amendments, as my hon. Friend knows very well, remove the relevant titles from the effect of the European Communities Act 1972, and the reason why those are unacceptable is that they would make it impossible for us to discharge our obligations under the treaty within domestic law.

Mr. Marlow: rose—

Mr. Dorrell: I will give way to my hon. Friend later. I want to move on to deal reasonably briefly with the arguments advanced yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South to the effect that we are committed to joining stage 3 of the economic and monetary union and that the safeguards do not work. He was particularly concerned that we are committed to rejoining the exchange rate mechanism. He sought to argue that on two counts, both of them, I think, wrong. His argument was, first, on the ground that there was a legal obligation. He said that there was a legal obligation contained within the treaty which, when interpreted, would require the British Government, against its will, to rejoin the ERM.
I believe that there are three answers to that. The first is that nobody has yet quoted from the treaty a specific and express obligation to rejoin the ERM, for the simple reason that there is no express obligation within the treaty.

Mr. Macdonald: rose—

Mr. Dorrell: I will give way to any hon. Member who can quote to me the article in the Maastricht treaty which expressly requires membership by any member state of the

exchange rate mechanism. I say that with total confidence; there is no such obligation imposed under the Maastricht treaty.

Sir Trevor Skeet: It is at 109j. It is one of the criteria that are laid down and, since it is one of the criteria, we have to go along with it.

Mr. Dorell: It is one of the convergence criteria; my hon. Friend is right on that count. But there is no obligation on us to converge, because there is no obligation on us to reach the end result.

Several hon. Members: rose—

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. There are proper codes of debate. Hon. Members know full well that if the Minister wishes to give way, he will do so. If he does not, hon. Members should resume their seats, however senior they may be.

Mr. Dorrell: Secondly,—

Mr. Macdonald: rose—

Mr. Dorrell: Very well, I will give way just once more.

Mr. Macdonald: I have listened to the Financial Secretary's argument, but I think that he has got it slightly wrong. He is implying that the convergence criteria apply to the United Kingdom only if it opts in to the process towards monetary union, if it decides to go ahead with the third stage. But the protocol, especially paragraph 2, which says:
Paragraphs 3 to 9 shall have to effect if the United Kingdom notifies the Council that it does not intend to move to the third stage.",
implies that to exempt itself from the convergence criteria the United Kingdom has to notify the Council that it is not moving to the third stage. It is not a question of opting in to the convergence criteria; it is automatically in the convergence criteria unless it specifically notifies the Council that it wishes to opt out.

Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman is on to a drafting point. He will see that paragraph 1 of the protocol reads as follows:
The United Kingdom shall notify the Council whether it intends to move to the third stage before the Council makes its assessment under article 109j(2) of this Treaty.
The first paragraph of the protocol leaves the question entirely open. The second paragraph, from which the hon. Gentleman quoted, is an introductory paragraph which leads into paragraphs 3 to 9. Of those paragraphs, paragraph 4 is the one that is the safeguard for the United Kingdom position and that states that, in the case that we have indicated that we are not going to join the economic and monetary union,
The United Kingdom shall retain its powers in the field of monetary policy according to national law.
So there is no obligation to join either the ERM or the economic and monetary union. There is no express obligation in the treaty, nor is there an implied obligation either in the protocol, from which the hon. Gentleman quoted, or in article 109m, which my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South quoted yesterday. He used the obligation in article 109m to regard exchange rates as a matter of common interest. As I pointed out to him yesterday, that is precisely the same obligation as has been accepted by every member state of the European Economic Community, as it then was, and the European


Community, as we now know it, since the day when the original six signed the treaty of Rome, because it is contained in virtually the same language in article 107 of the treaty of Rome, which was signed in 1958.

Sir Peter Tapsell: My hon. Friend is saying something that has puzzled me for a considerable time. I think that everyone will agree that the single currency and monetary union are at the heart of this whole treaty. If it is not the intention of the Government eventually to join in a single currency, why are they forcing the treaty through? If we do not join in 1996, it makes the whole thing an absolute farce.

Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend has raised an important point. Let me answer his question in a slightly elliptical way; it strikes me as the most cogent. Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South said:
I cannot see how we could remain within the European Community as the only country—other than Denmark, perhaps—committed to staying outside the single currency." —[Official Report, 13 January 1993; Vol. 216, c. 986.]
My hon. Friend's point was that, whatever the legal position might be, there would be a practical obligation to join a single currency, if one were established.
I do not understand the logic of that argument. My hon. Friend says that he does not wish to become part of a single currency; he then seems to argue that, because he hopes that the United Kingdom will not become part of such a currency, it follows that the continentals will not be able to set it up. That is clearly a nonsensical proposition for any hon. Member to adopt.
The success of the treaty lies in the fact that it allows the United Kingdom to continue to participate in the design of a system of economic and monetary union at which it is likely—I put it no more strongly than that—that some other member states will wish to arrive. It also allows us to preserve freedom to decide, at a later date, whether to join the single-currency monetary union that has been created—with our participation—by our partners on the continent. Furthermore, the treaty clearly establishes the consequences of that decision.
Let me ask the House—including my hon. Friend the Member for East Lindsey (Sir P. Tapsell)—to reflect on the possibility that, if the Bill is rejected, some member states will establish a currency union in any event. My hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South said yesterday that, in his view, the United Kingdom would have no choice but to join that union. If the Bill is not passed, the continentals will be able to establish a single currency without our participating in its design—and my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South believes that we would have no choice but to join it. Surely that is not a better position than that established by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in which we participate in the design and are free at a later date to decide whether to join.

Mr. Michael Spicer: Having been given a good run yesterday, I did not intend to prolong today's proceedings, but this is becoming ridiculous.
The whole purpose of not ratifying the treaty would be to avoid setting up a single currency, with all the accompanying paraphernalia. All I meant yesterday was this: if the treaty were ratified and the single currency were established, we could not possibly stay outside it. Of course it is theoretically possible for others to set it up and for this country alone to stay outside it, while remaining in

the Common Market. But—I am leaving aside the legal point, on which I disagree with my hon. Friend the Minister—it would not work out like that. In practical terms, we could not possibly work within the framework of the new single currency and the institutions attached to it while remaining outside it.

Mr. Dorrell: I entirely understand my hon. Friend's point; I merely seek to develop the logic of the position that he has described. I do not agree with his claim that the establishment of a single currency by other European countries would leave us with no option but to join that currency. If that is his argument, however, I do not see how he can conclude that it is in this country's interests to stand apart from the development of such a currency, if the continental powers choose to establish it. I am a great fan of the House of Commons, but I know that it is not within its competence to deny other European sovereign states free choice to establish a single currency, if that is what they choose to do.

Mr. Marlow: This is a complex issue, and I may be wrong; but I am a little fearful that my hon. Friend misled the Committee earlier. In my previous intervention, I referred to paragraph 2 of article 104c, which relates to the Commission monitoring whether we maintain sufficient proximity to various criteria regarding budget deficit. My hon. Friend said that our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had negotiated a very effective opt-out on monetary union. Let me draw his attention to protocol 5, on certain provisions relating to the United Kingdom. The provisions excluded do not include paragraph 2 of article 104c(2), though they include paragraph 1 of that article. It appears that paragraph 2 will apply to the United Kingdom regardless of whether we comply with stage 3.

Mr. Dorrell: That is true, but my hon. Friend should also remember that the penalties contained in a later paragraph of article 104c do not apply unless and until we choose to join monetary union. The effect of article 104c is to commit us to the arrangement described in article 109e:
In the second stage, Member States shall endeavour to avoid excessive government deficits.
We have accepted that treaty obligation—an obligation which, as I said earlier, we embrace, not because it is in the treaty but because we seek to impose it on ourselves.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Surely, given the existence of such an obligation in the treaty, there is a severe risk that the Commission—or any other element that is important in the structure of the EC—will wish to comment on the size of our deficit from time to time. If that happens, is it not likely to have an adverse effect on markets and to make things extremely difficult?

Mr. Dorrell: It is true that the Commission can comment. It can already comment. A regular feature of the agendas of ECOFIN meetings is examination of the performance of individual member states in relation to published criteria. In that regard, there is nothing new in the treaty. As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), the key point is that the penalty provisions in article 104c do not come into


effect unless and until we choose to move to stage 3 of economic and monetary union—and that is our free choice.
Let me now deal briefly with an aspect of the design of EMU, which has already become clear on the face of the treaty.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Dorrell: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can know what I am going to say. I hope that he will contain himself. After all, I have already given way to him twice.
More than one hon. Member has argued that the prescription for the central bank provided in the treaty of Maastricht would design a bankers' Europe—a Europe in which the central bank would not be accountable to the people of Europe in an acceptable way. If the House is to consider that, it must ask itself what its choice will be for this country when the time comes for us to decide whether to join a single currency and become part of a monetary union. At that point we shall be considering whether we want to accept an obligation to accept membership of a single currency.
Of course, if one is deciding whether to join a single currency, it is a proper consideration to look at the arrangements for the management of that single currency; and if there is a single currency, there must be a monetary authority responsible for managing it. Equally obviously, if it is a currency that will circulate in 12 member states, the monetary authority cannot be one that is firmly rooted in the institutions of one member state. I do not detect much support in the House for the proposition that the monetary authority responsible for all 12 member states should be ECOFIN; still less do I detect enthusiasm for the proposition that it be managed by the European Commission.
There is, of course, plenty of scope for individual hon. Members to have a view about whether a single currency is desirable, but if there is to be a single currency the institutions defined within the treaty are a broadly sensible means of managing that currency, developed from what has been, to some degree, the successful experience both of other member states and of states outside the Community that operate a monetary authority that is distinct from the main economic policy authority within the state. Since it is the commitment that we should retain at member state level responsibility for taxation and for wider economic policy questions, it is inherent in the assumptions of the treaty that economic policy, taxation policy and so forth should be to some extent divorced from monetary policy. The institutions designed and set out in the treaty represent a fair attempt by the Community to learn from the experience of other countries that operate a monetary authority that is different from their taxation and economic authority.

Sir Peter Tapsell: My hon. Friend puts these matters with the utmost clarity, and it is exhilarating to hear a first-class mind explaining these things so clearly, but since, throughout our history, we have never thought it right to establish an autonomous central bank, run by our own fellow countrymen, why should we now in any circumstances wish to set up an autonomous central bank run by foreigners, even if we had a single currency?

Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend reinforces my point. If he takes the view that in no circumstances can he contemplate a monetary authority that is not, first, combined with economic policy and taxation and, second, responsible one hundred per cent. to the House, he clearly cannot in any circumstances support a single currency that circulates in 12 member states of the European Community. That is the consequence of taking such a position.
The point that I seek to put to the Committee and to my hon. Friend is that there are many people who believe that a single currency has something to contribute to the development of economic management and an efficient economy within the member states of the Community. If one is interested in that concept, some institutions along the lines of those defined in the treaty seem to me not only a natural consequence of the desire to establish such a currency but the fruit of learning from the experience of those other countries—Germany, the United States and Sweden have all been quoted—which operate monetary policy independently from the main political authority.
It seems to me rather odd to argue that the United States or Germany or Sweden are any less democratic as a result of the institutions that they have chosen to establish.

Sir Peter Tapsell: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way yet again. May I define what I mean by autonomous? I mean a central bank that is not democratically accountable to democratically elected ministers answerable to a democratic assembly. So even if we had a single European currency. I would argue strongly that we need to have a single European central bank that is democratically accountable and answerable—and that is what we do not have in the Maastricht treaty.

Mr. Dorrell: I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes, but I invite him to design a workable system for a European central bank that is politically accountable to a European political process. I do not believe that it would be easy to do and I certainly do not believe that it would learn the lessons that are available from other central banks that are divorced from the tax and economic management authority.
I should like to get on, Mr. Morris, because I am conscious that I have already detained the Committee for a great deal longer than I had intended.

Mr. Duncan-Smith: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, as I know that he is seeking to reach the conclusion of his arguments. I would just like him to clarify an earlier point that I may have missed. It seemed that my hon. Friend was suggesting that we had a position of opting into stage 2 as and when we chose, but article 109e says:
The second stage for achieving economic and monetary union shall begin on 1 January 1994.
So from that point onwards, do we not therefore cut into stage 2?

Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend misheard me. The British protocol and the British position is that we are free to decide whether to join stage 3 of monetary union. We are clearly committed—and we make no bones about it—to stage 2 of the process, at which point monetary policy remains the exclusive concern of member states and national Governments.
I should like, if I may, Mr. Morris, in conclusion, to come back to the essential point.

Mr. Budgen: My hon. Friend seems to commend the British constitution on the basis that it is democratic. Surely the essential characteristic of the British constitution is that we have a sovereign Parliament. It is not necessarily a direct democracy at all. The thing that is different about the other constitutions to which my hon. Friend has drawn the Committee's attention is that they are federal and written structures.

Mr. Dorrell: It would be a brave man who would describe the French political tradition as federal. There is a wide range of political traditions in Europe, some of them federal, some tending to be more centralised. To my knowledge, all operate a written constitution but that does not undermine the basic premise.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: I really am confused now by my hon. Friend. We can opt in, if the House so decides, at the appropriate time to stage 3: is he indicating that we have an opt-in or opt-out choice of stage 2 with its convergence criteria, or are we obliged to follow the convergence criteria? That is the question.

Mr. Dorrell: I am seeking to be crystal clear. We are committed to stage 2. We are not committed to stage 3. The convergence criteria are conditions precedent on joining a single currency. A single currency is not stage 2. A single currency is stage 3. If we decide not to join the single currency, we are not committed to seeking convergence on the conditions required to join it.
I come back to the essential fact. The treaty of Maastricht provides this country with three things. It provides us with the right to participate in the preparation for the arrangements for a single currency. Secondly, it provides us with a choice about whether to join that single currency, which we shall have participated in designing. Thirdly, it sets out clearly the consequences for Britain of joining or not joining that single currency. There is no need for the House or Britain to exercise that choice now. The only decision that the House must make in accepting or rejecting the Bill is whether to participate in preparations for that single currency. I strongly believe that it is in Britain's interests to participate in that process and leave that choice open.

Mr. Macdonald: The important point to seize upon in respect of the Bill and treaty has already been made: Maastricht cannot be seen and judged entirely according to the wording of the treaty alone but must be seen in a wider context—as part of a process, a journey of member states towards ever closer union. There are two reasonable questions to ask about Maastricht: first, whether the journey towards every closer union is desirable and, secondly, whether Maastricht is an appropriate way of continuing that journey. I believe in the goal of ever closer union, but I accept that it is a matter about which one must make a fundamental judgment—either one favours that goal or one does not. I shall not enter into that debate now.
9 pm
Even if one accepts the goal of ever closer union, it is still possible to ask whether Maastricht is the best way of achieving it. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), I accept that Maastricht is not perfect. I do not think that any hon. Member would defend Maastricht as the perfect treaty from our own point of view. But it is not drawn up from one point of view: it is

an agreement and, necessarily, a compromise between 12 different Governments. The question is not whether it is perfect—[Interruption.]

The Chairman: Order. I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman. May I ask hon. Members who are having private meetings on the Back Benches to protect the interests of other Back Benchers by having their meetings elsewhere?

Mr. Macdonald: I am grateful, Mr. Morris.
The question is not whether Maastricht is perfect, but whether it is an appropriate way forward. I accept that Maastricht is not perfect. Expectations that it should conform in every comma and sentence to the goals of one Government or one country, far less of one party, are unrealistic. One cannot get socialism in one treaty; Maastricht is part of a process. We want to see a subsequent treaty after Maastricht; it must be an ongoing process.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) spoke of the need for a system of fiscal transfer to make the goal of economic and monetary union operate as effectively and fairly as we would like. I entirely agree. [Interruption.]

Mr. Radice: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. If Conservative Members want to confer among themselves, why do they not go to the 1922 Committee? We listened to their speeches; they should listen to ours.

The Chairman: I should be most grateful if hon. Members below the Gangway on both sides of the House would hold their meetings outside the Chamber.

Mr. Macdonald: The point that I was making is that Maastricht will have to be followed by subsequent treaties to make the process of economic and monetary union operate as we would like. I should like a subsequent treaty to allow fiscal transfer among member states, which will be necessary. I should like a further treaty to give the European Community, via the Commission or other institutions, the ability to raise taxation directly to facilitate the process of fiscal transfer and of borrowing to operate the deficits which will prove necessary from time to time according to the development of the economic cycle. Once we are in the state of economic and monetary union, there will inevitably be constraints on the fiscal and deficit-operating powers of individual member states. Therefore, these powers have to be devolved upwards into Community institutions.
The question is not whether the treaty is perfect, but whether it represents substantial and valuable progress. I argue strongly that it does because, for the first time, it brings in a social dimension, an environmental dimension and valuable political dimensions. The social and environmental dimensions are brought in on their own merits, not as consequences of successfully operating a single market but as goals to be pursued and achieved on their own merits.
Reference has already been made to article 2, which embodies some of the social goals that I find so attractive and valuable in the treaty. I noted that when the Minister referred to article 2 he managed to mention the goal of high employment, but he could not get the words "high social protection" out between his lips. Yet high social protection is what we shall be committed to as a goal of the Community, as a consequence of this treaty. There are a


number of provisions in the treaty which relate to the economic and social goals which lie behind much of the treaty.
I was earlier challenged privately by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) to find a third reference to employment in the treaty. Yesterday I managed to find him a second one, but now I have found a third as well. The second was agreement on social policy, which the Government has unfortunately opted out of but which a Labour Government can easily opt into. The third reference is in article 123—hon. Members will find it on page 31 of the blue document—which refers to the social fund to be set up to provide for social training and to combat unemployment and help people to find employment. Article 127 goes over similar ground and article 130 is perhaps one of the most important of the lot as it talks of the need for economic and social cohesion and particularly of the need for the Community to set itself the goal of bringing forward the more economically backward and disadvantaged areas of the Community and also to bring forward and take special account of the rural areas, which is something that I warmly welcome. Throughout the treaty there are numerous references to social and economic goals which I, as a socialist—and, I hope, all my colleagues on this side—would have warmly welcomed.
Despite those social goals, which are in the Community framework for the first time on their own merits and not as by-products of achieving a single market, and although these are valuable gains, there has been controversy about the economic provisions, particularly those relating to the central bank and the convergence criteria. There has been a very odd aspect of the debate tonight and yesterday about the economic provisions in this treaty. Some Conservative Members and Baroness Thatcher regard these economic provisions as letting in socialism by the back door. Yet, on the Labour side, one or two of my colleagues have argued the reverse—that the treaty nails us to the bed of monetarism for ever. Both cannot possibly be right, and it is just possible that both are wrong. I believe that both are indeed wrong, although by implying that the treaty embodies and places in the framework of the Community certain goals which the Social Democrats would be happy to embrace, Baroness Thatcher is more correct than my hon. Friends who criticise the treaty for being too monetarist.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that his views, Baroness Thatcher's views or anyone else's views are irrelevant because the article on page 91 entitled "Independence" makes it abundantly clear that, when the central bank is established, no Government of any party, no Chancellor of the Exchequer or Minister will be legally permitted even to make representations to it, to phone or to write, without committing the equivalent of a Euro-crime? Therefore, while he or Baroness Thatcher may be right, the fact is that the central bank will decide. It will be appointed for eight years, and no politician, no Prime Minister, no Chancellor of the Exchequer, Finance Minister or Back Bencher will be permitted even to make representations to it. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman had better keep quiet and wait and see what the bank does. Whatever it does will be its own business, not that of democratic Governments or Parliaments.

Mr. Macdonald: I shall deal later with the question of the independence of the central bank. I was trying to say that, regardless of what it says in the treaty, there are different arguments about how its provisions should be interpreted. Some of my hon. Friends argue that provisions such as that to which the hon. Member for Southend East (Sir T. Taylor) referred make the treaty inevitably monetarist, whereas Conservative hon. Members and Baroness Thatcher say that the same provisions make it an inevitably socialist document. The arguments will continue. In other words, the treaty is not the end of political argument as some have implied because those who suggest that it is the end of political argument cannot agree even about which political argument has been brought to an end by the treaty—some say it is the monetarist argument and others say it is the socialist argument.

Mr. Shore: Irrespective of what different politicians have said about whether the treaty is monetarist, democratic socialist or anything else in character, surely there can be no dispute about the words in the treaty which describe the independence of the central bank. Part of the relevant article states that Governments will undertake
not to seek to influence
it—there can be no argument about that. Either the words mean what they say or they do not.

Mr. Macdonald: As I said, I shall deal with the independence of the central bank in a moment. My point is that arguments have been advanced from both parties that the treaty is somehow an end to political debate. According to some, it locks us into a monetarist framework for ever, while according to others it locks us into a socialist framework for ever. That is nonsense—both arguments cannot be right. The existence of the two arguments proves that they are both wrong. The treaty will be debated after the Bill has been passed—

Sir Peter Tapsell: There is no antithesis between the hon. Gentleman's description of a socialist and a monetarist situation. Karl Marx was a monetarist, and this country had the most extreme monetarist policy it has had this century when Mr. Denis Healey was Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Macdonald: It is an interesting point—that socialism and monetarism are the same thing—but it was not exactly what the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends or mine were arguing.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Seriously, does the hon. Gentleman not accept that it is the end of all political argument if his views, those of the Government and those of the French and German Governments cannot even be communicated to the central bank? I accept that the hon. Gentleman may be a very good Member of Parliament, and he has shown so far that he is a man of integrity. Does not he accept that the political argument about economic policy will be ended if the central bank runs everything, if appointments are for eight years? Would not any Minister be committing a Euro-crime if he were even to write a letter or make a phone call—

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not making an intervention; he is making a second speech.

Mr. Macdonald: This treaty is not the end of political argument. It is not the end of debate about the future of economic policy. It merely transfers the debate from a purely national stage to a European stage and puts it in a wider context. After it has been passed, there will still be arguments between my hon. Friends and Conservative Members as to what it means and whether it commits us to a more monetarist framework or a more socialist framework or neither.

Mr. Corbyn: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Macdonald: I have exhausted that point and want to move now to the question of a central bank.
Yesterday my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) said that price stability is the primary but not the exclusive purpose in having a central bank. Of course, the context in which the bank has to operate will be determined by member states individually and as a Community group, pursuing the goals that are articulated in article 2. Although that is a very cogent and very powerful point, some of my hon. Friends and some Conservative Members—for different reasons, presumably—object to the notion that the bank will not be able to take instructions from any particular member Government. In that sense, it will be independent. In my view, the notion of independence is rather overdone in the context of the central hank and monetary institutions. Experience of the Bank of England indicates that, frequently, the idea of political control, certainly when exercised by Labour Governments, can be quite empty. The direction of influence, rather than being from the Government to the bank, presumably via the Treasury, is often from the City to the Government via the bank. The bank acts not as the instrument of Government policy, particularly Labour Government policy, but rather as a wooden horse for the City of London within Governments of both parties.

Mr. Corbyn: My hon. Friend is right in saying that the Bank of England has often operated against the interests of Labour Governments. That is due to the mandarins who run it. If the hon. Gentleman has such doubts about the running of a bank which theoretically is state-owned and state-controlled, what influence does he think will be possible in the case of an independent central bank dedicated to a course of Euro-monetarism?

Mr. Macdonald: I am glad that my hon. Friend accepts that the Bank of England cannot be regarded simply as an instrument of Governments, especially Labour Governments. Conversely, banks which are nominally independent—for example, in Germany—respond to quite a degree of political influence.

Mr. Alan Simpson: What about recent events?

Mr. Macdonald: Well, there has been the question of unification. There is a question about whether the German Government and the Bundesbank have very different views about interest rates.

The Chairman: Order. I remind the hon. Member that we are debating amendment No. 40, not German interest rates. Perhaps he will address his remarks to the amendment.

Mr. Macdonald: I had no intention of dealing with the details of German interest rates, Mr. Morris, but to make the general point that independent central banks are not immune to political influence. Nor does the notion of an independent central bank mean that Governments are constrained from carrying out policies that my hon. Friends would warmly support.
For example, an independent central bank in the United States did not prevent President Roosevelt from carrying out a new deal programme to revive that economy out of recession. An independent central bank in Sweden has not prevented successive Governments from pursuing policies which many of my hon. Friends would like to see implemented in Britain.

Mr. Llew Smith: Is my hon. Friend aware that it may be wrong to make an analogy between the Bank of England and the European central bank because the result of the relationships of elected Governments with the European central bank would become part of European law, part of which would proclaim that democratically elected Governments had no right to advise the bankers of that institution? What, in that event, would be the point of holding elections? Why bother to vote if those elected could do nothing to influence the decision makers?

Mr. Macdonald: I am simply trying to establish that the vision of an independent central bank being inimical to any kind of social development or political progress is not borne out by the experience of other countries with independent central banks. That applies to Sweden and the United States, which have been able to carry through progressive social and economic policies.
The whole question of independence is more complex than legislation would have us believe. Indeed, if we compare the experience of Germany and Sweden with that of the United Kingdom—with Labour Governments here having to wrestle with a supposedly dependent central bank—my argument is borne out.

Mr. Peter Hain: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I apologise for interrupting my hon. Friend's interesting contribution, and I do so only because word has been communicated to us that the Government may be about to move the closure. If that should happen—

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Member is better informed than I am.

Mr. Hain: Further to that point of order, Mr. Morris—

The Chairman: Order. I have ruled on the point that the hon. Member raised. I—the occupant of the Chair—decide whether there should be a closure motion. No such motion has been moved and I am not interested in rumours.

Mr. Macdonald: A European central bank, because it would be composed of people from all the different countries—not just the fast growing and big countries but all countries, including the more economically backward areas of the Community—would provide a more balanced view of Europe's overall economic needs than either the Bundesbank now provides of those needs or the Bank of England, City-dominated and London-centred, provides of Britain's overall economic needs.

Mr. Radice: That is why the French have been such supporters of the idea of a European central bank. They want to mitigate the influence of the Bundesbank. That fact supports the point that my hon. Friend is making.

Mr. Macdonald: My right hon. Friend is right, and what he says relates to a larger point. We must see the treaty and the progress towards monetary union not only in their own terms but in relation to the other options.
The convergence criteria are equally controversial to many of my hon. Friends, who argue that they are hostile to economic growth, to the achievement of high employment, and so on. My first point is—

Mr. William Cash: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Macdonald: I have not yet made my point, so I shall do so before taking an intervention.
My first point is that if we are to move towards a monetary union, clearly there has to be some kind of central monetary and financial control over its members. We have to make sure that one member cannot pursue a course of irresponsible unilateral solo deficit running, which would inevitably have an impact on the other members. That being so, it is reasonable and right that there be some central restraint and control over members of the union—for example, contol over the kind of deficits that they are allowed to run. That happens now within the monetary union of the United Kingdom, in which the central Government exercise control over local authorities, and it must inevitably happen within a monetary union covering Europe as a whole.

Mr. Hain: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Macdonald: No. I must go on and make my second point.
The key point is that the central control must be flexible. It cannot be rigid; it must allow for differences and for stresses and strains within the monetary union—and the treaty allows for exactly that flexibility.

Mr. Cash: Has it occurred to the hon. Gentleman that the convergence conditions are precisely designed to create unemployment? Furthermore, has it occurred to him that the arrangements for capping under the excessive deficit procedure are designed to ensure that public expenditure will be capped? Does he appreciate that the system will not work, and that the cohesion funds will not make their way from one part of Europe to another, because there is neither the will not the ability to pay? Does he appreciate that the system will therefore collapse?

The Chairman: Order. That is too long an intervention.

Mr. Macdonald: I disagree with the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) about the cohesion funds. I believe that there is both a need and a desire to develop a Community in which there is more fiscal transfer than at present. That will be necessary. If it were not for the resistance of the United Kingdom Government, we should have drawn a little closer to that goal at Edinburgh.
Of course the convergence conditions are not designed to create unemployment. They are designed to lead to monetary union. But it is valid to ask whether, in the process of meeting the convergence criteria in order to achieve that goal, we may impose conditions upon ourselves which are too severe, and which may lead to

unemployment and so on. I question the idea of 1999 as the date by which monetary union will be achieved. I am sceptical about that.

Mr. Hain: In giving a general blessing to the convergence criteria, to the narrowness and rigidity of the treaty, and to the idea of an independent central European bank—and with that an independent Bank of England—is my hon. Friend in line with Labour party policy as expressed by the Front-Bench spokesmen?

Mr. Macdonald: As I said when I spoke about an independent central bank in an intervention last night, I did not expect that all my hon. Friends would agree with me on that subject. Tonight I have tried to argue that blind resistance to any notion of an independent central bank is not necessarily grounded in real fears about the economic and social consequences involved. If one compares the experience of the United Kingdom to that in Germany or Sweden, my argument is that to have a politically independent central bank does not necessarily lead to the economic and social goals that my hon. Friends want.

The Chairman: Order. I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would address the Chair and not simply talk to his hon. Friends. I should also be grateful if he could now conclude talking to his friends.

Mr. Macdonald: I apologise. I will try to work through to a conclusion.

Mr. Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. Did I hear you correctly when you asked my hon. Friend to conclude his remarks, or were you just bringing him to order?

The Chairman: No, the hon. Gentleman misheard me. I asked the hon. Member for Western Isles to conclude his remarks on the point raised by the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) so that we can get on with the specific amendment.

Mr. Macdonald: I know that other hon. Members wish to participate in the debate. I shall conclude by referring to the convergence criteria. My point is that the convergence criteria are flexible within the wording of the treaty. In the first instance, the treaty provides that some countries may not meet the convergence criteria and, therefore, will not qualify for monetary union. Paragraph 3 in article 109k on page 29 of the treaty provides a specific exemption for countries which, because of their inability or lack of willingness to meet the convergence critiera, do not qualify for monetary union. The article specifies that countries which do not meet the convergence criteria or qualify for monetary union are not subject to the fines, constraints and penalties to which some of my hon. Friends have referred. The Council of Ministers can agree that certain countries are exempt from the fines because of their economic circumstances, and such countries will not qualify for, or achieve the goal of, monetary union.
The framework laid down in the treaty is not so rigid as some would insist that it is; there is room for an opt-out, not just for the United Kingdom but for every country in the Community.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: Even when countries operate under the rules, is it not the case that there may be


circumstances in which the member states may decide that the rules do not apply? In the case of fines, the word "may" is used throughout the protocol.

Mr. Macdonald: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is the point that I was coming to. It is the flexibility not only of a country joining the monetary union but also of the convergence criteria not applying to a member of the currency union after it has joined the monetary union, and the penalties not applying to a member of the monetary union if it fails to meet the convergence critiera. That is decided by the Council of Ministers. I grant that to my hon. Friends.
Any member of the monetary union must argue its case with the other members of the monetary union on the basis of its particular economic circumstances and say that it cannot meet the inflation criteria, the budget deficit criteria or some of the other criteria. If the country successfully argues its case in the Council of Ministers, the constraints, fines and penalties no longer apply.

Mr. Winnick: I have listened with great care to what my hon. Friend is saying. Despite everything else, does he accept that that takes away the authority of the House of Commons and the Government of the day and places them in a position, at best, in which we would be virtually begging the body involved for permission to overspend in the circumstances that my hon. Friend described? Is my hon. Friend not worried about the erosion of the basic sovereignty of this House of Commons and this country—the very reasons why we are here in the first place—quite apart from the cuts which will undoubtedly occur in public spending?

Mr. Macdonald: Of course I worry about that, but I ask my hon. Friend to face up to reality—which is that we face such constraints whether we are inside a monetary union or outside it. I ask my hon. Friends to recall the history of the 1970s when we had to beg the International Monetary Fund for permission to run a deficit. I ask my hon. Friends to recall the history of the past year and, indeed, this year, when we had to beg the Bundesbank to reduce its interest rates because of the condition of our country.

Mr. Winnick: Until we left the exchange rate mechanism.

Mr. Macdonald: Yes. I remind my hon. Friend that we are still begging the Bundesbank to reduce its interest rates because they place constraints on our ability to deliver our economic goals.
The point is simply that we shall have to operate in an international environment whether we are inside the monetary union or outside it. I argue that we are better placed within the Council of Ministers to convince our colleagues—and frequently our socialist colleagues—within it of the special needs of the United Kingdom than trying to persuade the bankers of the Bundesbank or of the IMF of Britain's special case.
The arguments about the future course of economic policy in Britain will continue after the treaty has been passed. We shall continue to need to negotiate and make agreements with international partners after the treaty has been passed. The treaty is not the watershed that some of my hon. Friends would like to insist that it is. It moves the argument away from a purely national stage on to a

European stage. I argue that that strengthens our position and helps us to win our arguments in those spheres in the future.

The Chairman: Rev. Ian—

Mr. Nicholas Baker (Lords Commissioner to the Treasury): rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The Committee proceeded to a Division—

Rev. Ian Paisley: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Morris.

The Chairman: May I point out that it must be on the procedure relating to the Division, not on any decision of the Chair.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Sir, you called my name and I stood up. The Whip was entirely out of order. I was called and I want you to rule on that. You called my name. I should like a ruling, Sir. You had called my name and, according to the Standing Orders of the House, I was entitled to speak.

The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is correct, but the closure may be moved at any point. I am not to know when the closure is to be moved. I merely have to judge whether it is an appropriate time for the closure to be accepted or not. I made that decision.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Morris. I have listened carefully to what you said, but if I was called, I was at least entitled to utter some words before being interrupted by the Whip who moved the closure motion; that did not happen.

The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman makes a point, but my judgment was that it was appropriate to conclude the debate as the motion had been put. The closure motion can be moved at any stage of any speech. It is unfortunate that the hon. Gentleman had only just been called.

Mr. Bill Walker: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Morris.

The Chairman: Is it on procedure?

Mr. Walker: Yes. The procedures of the House are designed, as I understand it, to give the House the opportunity, in Committee or elsewhere, to hear clearly views from all parts of the United Kingdom. When you made your judgment to accept the closure motion, were you satisfied that the interests of all parts of the United Kingdom had been heard during the four-day debate that has taken place, because if not—

The Chairman: Order. I understand the point of order, but I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to page 406 of "Erskine May", where he will read that the discretion of the Chair is absolute and is not open to dispute.

Mr. Walker: I am not disputing your decision but asking whether, in a constitutional debate, it will enhance the reputation of this Parliament in Scotland. If it does not, this day will be remembered for a long time by Scots.

The Committee having divided: Ayes 298, Noes 240.

Division No. 110]
[9.36


AYES


Adley, Robert
Eggar, Tim


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Elletson, Harold


Aitken, Jonathan
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Alexander, Richard
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Alton, David
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Amess, David
Evennett, David


Ancram, Michael
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Faber, David


Ashby, David
Fabricant, Michael


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Faulds, Andrew


Aspinwall, Jack
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Atkins, Robert
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Fishburn, Dudley


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Forman, Nigel


Baldry, Tony
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Forth, Eric


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Foster, Don (Bath)


Bates, Michael
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Batiste, Spencer
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Bellingham, Henry
Freeman, Roger


Beresford, Sir Paul
French, Douglas


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Gale, Roger


Booth, Hartley
Gallie, Phil


Boswell, Tim
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Garnier, Edward


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Gillan, Cheryl


Bowden, Andrew
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Bowis, John
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Brandreth, Gyles
Gorst, John


Brazier, Julian
Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)


Bright, Graham
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Grylls, Sir Michael


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Burns, Simon
Hague, William


Burt, Alistair
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)


Butler, Peter
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Butterfill, John
Hampson, Dr Keith


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hanley, Jeremy


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Hannam, Sir John


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hargreaves, Andrew


Carrington, Matthew
Harris, David


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Haselhurst, Alan


Chaplin, Mrs Judith
Hawkins, Nick


Chapman, Sydney
Hayes, Jerry


Churchill, Mr
Heald, Oliver


Clappison, James
Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hendry, Charles


Coe, Sebastian
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Colvin, Michael
Hicks, Robert


Congdon, David
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Conway, Derek
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Horam, John


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Cormack, Patrick
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Couchman, James
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Dafis, Cynog
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jack, Michael


Day, Stephen
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Devlin, Tim
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Dickens, Geoffrey
Johnston, Sir Russell


Dicks, Terry
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dorrell, Stephen
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Dover, Den
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Duncan, Alan
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Dunn, Bob
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)


Durant, Sir Anthony
Key, Robert


Dykes, Hugh
Kilfedder, Sir James





King, Rt Hon Tom
Robathan, Andrew


Kirkhope, Timothy
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Kirkwood, Archy
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Knox, David
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Sackville, Tom


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Salmond, Alex


Leigh, Edward
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lidington, David
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Lightbown, David
Shersby, Michael


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Llwyd, Elfyn
Soames, Nicholas


Luff, Peter
Speed, Sir Keith


Lynne, Ms Liz
Spencer, Sir Derek


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


MacKay, Andrew
Spink, Dr Robert


Maclean, David
Spring, Richard


Maclennan, Robert
Sproat, Iain


McLoughlin, Patrick
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Madel, David
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Maitland, Lady Olga
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Major, Rt Hon John
Steen, Anthony


Malone, Gerald
Stephen, Michael


Mans, Keith
Stern, Michael


Marland, Paul
Stewart, Allan


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Streeter, Gary


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Sumberg, David


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Sykes, John


Mates, Michael
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Merchant, Piers
Temple-Morris, Peter


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Thomason, Roy


Milligan, Stephen
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Mills, Iain
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Thurnham, Peter


Monro, Sir Hector
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Tracey, Richard


Moss, Malcolm
Tredinnick, David


Needham, Richard
Trend, Michael


Nelson, Anthony
Trotter, Neville


Neubert, Sir Michael
Twinn, Dr Ian


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Tyler, Paul


Nicholls, Patrick
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Viggers, Peter


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Waller, Gary


Norris, Steve
Ward, John


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Waterson, Nigel


Ottaway, Richard
Watts, John


Page, Richard
Wells, Bowen


Paice, James
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Patnick, Irvine
Whitney, Ray


Patten, Rt Hon John
Widdecombe, Ann


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Wigley, Dafydd


Pickles, Eric
Willetts, David


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Wilshire, David


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Wolfson, Mark


Powell, William (Corby)
Wood, Timothy


Rathbone, Tim
Yeo, Tim


Redwood, John
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Renton, Rt Hon Tim



Richards, Rod
Tellers for the Ayes:


Riddick, Graham
Mr. James Arbuthnot and


Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcclm
Mr. Robert G. Hughes.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 74, Noes 304.

Division No. 110]
[9.36


AYES


Adley, Robert
Eggar, Tim


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Elletson, Harold


Aitken, Jonathan
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Alexander, Richard
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Alton, David
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Amess, David
Evennett, David


Ancram, Michael
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Faber, David


Ashby, David
Fabricant, Michael


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Faulds, Andrew


Aspinwall, Jack
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Atkins, Robert
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Fishburn, Dudley


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Forman, Nigel


Baldry, Tony
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Forth, Eric


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Foster, Don (Bath)


Bates, Michael
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Batiste, Spencer
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Bellingham, Henry
Freeman, Roger


Beresford, Sir Paul
French, Douglas


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Gale, Roger


Booth, Hartley
Gallie, Phil


Boswell, Tim
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Garnier, Edward


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Gillan, Cheryl


Bowden, Andrew
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Bowis, John
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Brandreth, Gyles
Gorst, John


Brazier, Julian
Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)


Bright, Graham
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Grylls, Sir Michael


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Burns, Simon
Hague, William


Burt, Alistair
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)


Butler, Peter
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Butterfill, John
Hampson, Dr Keith


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hanley, Jeremy


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Hannam, Sir John


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hargreaves, Andrew


Carrington, Matthew
Harris, David


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Haselhurst, Alan


Chaplin, Mrs Judith
Hawkins, Nick


Chapman, Sydney
Hayes, Jerry


Churchill, Mr
Heald, Oliver


Clappison, James
Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hendry, Charles


Coe, Sebastian
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Colvin, Michael
Hicks, Robert


Congdon, David
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Conway, Derek
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Horam, John


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Cormack, Patrick
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Couchman, James
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Dafis, Cynog
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jack, Michael


Day, Stephen
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Devlin, Tim
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Dickens, Geoffrey
Johnston, Sir Russell


Dicks, Terry
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dorrell, Stephen
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Dover, Den
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Duncan, Alan
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Dunn, Bob
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)


Durant, Sir Anthony
Key, Robert


Dykes, Hugh
Kilfedder, Sir James





King, Rt Hon Tom
Robathan, Andrew


Kirkhope, Timothy
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Kirkwood, Archy
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Knox, David
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Sackville, Tom


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Salmond, Alex


Leigh, Edward
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lidington, David
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Lightbown, David
Shersby, Michael


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Llwyd, Elfyn
Soames, Nicholas


Luff, Peter
Speed, Sir Keith


Lynne, Ms Liz
Spencer, Sir Derek


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


MacKay, Andrew
Spink, Dr Robert


Maclean, David
Spring, Richard


Maclennan, Robert
Sproat, Iain


McLoughlin, Patrick
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Madel, David
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Maitland, Lady Olga
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Major, Rt Hon John
Steen, Anthony


Malone, Gerald
Stephen, Michael


Mans, Keith
Stern, Michael


Marland, Paul
Stewart, Allan


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Streeter, Gary


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Sumberg, David


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Sykes, John


Mates, Michael
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Merchant, Piers
Temple-Morris, Peter


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Thomason, Roy


Milligan, Stephen
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Mills, Iain
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Thurnham, Peter


Monro, Sir Hector
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Tracey, Richard


Moss, Malcolm
Tredinnick, David


Needham, Richard
Trend, Michael


Nelson, Anthony
Trotter, Neville


Neubert, Sir Michael
Twinn, Dr Ian


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Tyler, Paul


Nicholls, Patrick
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Viggers, Peter


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Waller, Gary


Norris, Steve
Ward, John


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Waterson, Nigel


Ottaway, Richard
Watts, John


Page, Richard
Wells, Bowen


Paice, James
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Patnick, Irvine
Whitney, Ray


Patten, Rt Hon John
Widdecombe, Ann


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Wigley, Dafydd


Pickles, Eric
Willetts, David


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Wilshire, David


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Wolfson, Mark


Powell, William (Corby)
Wood, Timothy


Rathbone, Tim
Yeo, Tim


Redwood, John
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Renton, Rt Hon Tim



Richards, Rod
Tellers for the Ayes:


Riddick, Graham
Mr. James Arbuthnot and


Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcclm
Mr. Robert G. Hughes.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Allen, Graham


Adams, Mrs Irene
Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)


Ainger, Nick
Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Armstrong, Hilary






Austin-Walker, John
Gill, Christopher


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Barnes, Harry
Godsiff, Roger


Battle, John
Golding, Mrs Llin


Bayley, Hugh
Gordon, Mildred


Beckett, Margaret
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bell, Stuart
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Benton, Joe
Grocott, Bruce


Bermingham, Gerald
Hain, Peter


Berry, Dr. Roger
Hall, Mike


Betts, Clive
Hanson, David


Boateng, Paul
Hardy, Peter


Body, Sir Richard
Harman, Ms Harriet


Boyce, Jimmy
Hawksley, Warren


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Heppell, John


Bradley, Keith
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hinchliffe, David


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Hood, Jimmy


Budgen, Nicholas
Hoon, Geoffrey


Burden, Richard
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Byers, Stephen
Hoyle, Doug


Caborn, Richard
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Callaghan, Jim
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hutton, John


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Illsley, Eric


Canavan, Dennis
Ingram, Adam


Cann, Jamie
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Cash, William
Jamieson, David


Chisholm, Malcolm
Janner, Greville


Clapham, Michael
Jessel, Toby


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Coffey, Ann
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Cohen, Harry
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Connarty, Michael
Jowell, Tessa


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Corbett, Robin
Khabra, Piara S.


Corbyn, Jeremy
Kilfoyle, Peter


Corston, Ms Jean
Knapman, Roger


Cousins, Jim
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Cox, Tom
Leighton, Ron


Cran, James
Lewis, Terry


Cryer, Bob
Litherland, Robert


Cummings, John
Lloyd, Tony (Stratford)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Lord, Michael


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
McAllion, John


Cunningham, Dr John (C'p'l'nd)
McAvoy, Thomas


Darling, Alistair
McCartney, Ian


Davidson, Ian
McCrea, Rev William


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Macdonald, Calum


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
McFall, John


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)
McKelvey, William


Denham, John
Mackinlay, Andrew


Dewar, Donald
McLeish, Henry


Dixon, Don
McWilliam, John


Dobson, Frank
Madden, Max


Donohoe, Brian H.
Mahon, Alice


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Mandelson, Peter


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Marek, Dr John


Eagle, Ms Angela
Marlow, Tony


Eastham, Ken
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Enright, Derek
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Etherington, Bill
Michael, Alun


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Fatchett, Derek
Milburn, Alan


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Miller, Andrew


Fisher, Mark
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Flynn, Paul
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Fraser, John
Morgan, Rhodri


Fry, Peter
Morley, Elliot


Galbraith, Sam
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


Galloway, George
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Gardiner, Sir George
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


George, Bruce
Mowlam, Marjorie


Gerrard, Neil
Mudie, George





Mullin, Chris
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Murphy, Paul
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Snape, Peter


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Soley, Clive


O'Hara, Edward
Spearing, Nigel


Olner, William
Spellar, John


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Paisley, Rev Ian
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Pawsey, James
Stevenson, George


Pendry, Tom
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Pickthall, Colin
Straw, Jack


Pike, Peter L.
Sweeney, Walter


Porter, David (Waveney)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Primarolo, Dawn
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Purchase, Ken
Tipping, Paddy


Quin, Ms Joyce
Trimble, David


Radice, Giles
Turner, Dennis


Raynsford, Nick
Vaz, Keith


Redmond, Martin
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Reid, Dr John
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Wareing, Robert N


Roche, Mrs. Barbara
Watson, Mike


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Wicks, Malcolm


Rowlands, Ted
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Ruddock, Joan
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Sheerman, Barry
Winnick, David


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Wright, Dr Tony


Short, Clare
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Simpson, Alan



Skeet, Sir Trevor
Tellers for the Noes:


Skinner, Dennis
Mr. Alan Meale and


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Mr. Gordon McMaster.

Division No. 111]
[9.51 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Adams, Mrs Irene
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Austin-Walker, John
Leighton, Ron


Barnes, Harry
Lewis, Terry


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Litherland, Robert


Body, Sir Richard
Lord, Michael


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
McAllion, John


Budgen, Nicholas
McCrea, Rev William


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
McWilliam, John


Canavan, Dennis
Madden, Max


Cann, Jamie
Mahon, Alice


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Marlow, Tony


Cash, William
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Cohen, Harry
Mullin, Chris


Corbyn, Jeremy
Paisley, Rev Ian


Corston, Ms Jean
Pawsey, James


Cran, James
Porter, David (Waveney)


Cryer, Bob
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Cummings, John
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Rowlands, Ted


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Fry, Peter
Simpson, Alan


Galloway, George
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Gardiner, Sir George
Skinner, Dennis


Gerrard, Neil
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Gill, Christopher
Snape, Peter


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Spearing, Nigel


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Hall, Mike
Sweeney, Walter


Hawksley, Warren
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Jessel, Toby
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)






Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Trimble, David
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Walker, Bill (N Tayside)



Wilkinson, John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)
Mrs. Teresa Gorman and


Winnick, David
Mr. Roger Knapman.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Dover, Den


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Duncan, Alan


Aitken, Jonathan
Dunn, Bob


Alexander, Richard
Durant, Sir Anthony


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Dykes, Hugh


Alton, David
Eggar, Tim


Amess, David
Elletson, Harold


Ancram, Michael
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Arbuthnot, James
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Ashby, David
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Evennett, David


Aspinwall, Jack
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Atkins, Robert
Faber, David


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Fabricant, Michael


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Baldry, Tony
Faulds, Andrew


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bates, Michael
Fishburn, Dudley


Batiste, Spencer
Flynn, Paul


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Forman, Nigel


Bellingham, Henry
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Forth, Eric


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Foster, Don (Bath)


Booth, Hartley
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Boswell, Tim
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Freeman, Roger


Bowden, Andrew
French, Douglas


Bowis, John
Gale, Roger


Brandreth, Gyles
Gallie, Phil


Brazier, Julian
Gapes, Mike


Bright, Graham
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Garnier, Edward


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Gillan, Cheryl


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Burns, Simon
Gorst, John


Burt, Alistair
Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)


Butler, Peter
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Butterfill, John
Grylls, Sir Michael


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Hague, William


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)


Carrington, Matthew
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hampson, Dr Keith


Chaplin, Mrs Judith
Hanley, Jeremy


Churchill, Mr
Hannam, Sir John


Clappison, James
Hargreaves, Andrew


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Harris, David


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Haselhurst, Alan


Coe, Sebastian
Hawkins, Nick


Colvin, Michael
Hayes, Jerry


Congdon, David
Heald, Oliver


Conway, Derek
Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hendry, Charles


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Cormack, Patrick
Hicks, Robert


Couchman, James
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Dafis, Cynog
Horam, John


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Day, Stephen
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Devlin, Tim
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Dicks, Terry
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Dorrell, Stephen
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)





Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Jack, Michael
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Powell, William (Corby)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Radice, Giles


Johnston, Sir Russell
Rathbone, Tim


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Redwood, John


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Richards, Rod


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Riddick, Graham


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm


Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Robathan, Andrew


Key, Robert
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Kilfedder, Sir James
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Kirkwood, Archy
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Sackville, Tom


Knox, David
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Salmond, Alex


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Leigh, Edward
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Shersby, Michael


Lidington, David
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lightbown, David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Soames, Nicholas


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Speed, Sir Keith


Llwyd, Elfyn
Spencer, Sir Derek


Luff, Peter
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Lynne, Ms Liz
Spink, Dr Robert


Macdonald, Calum
Spring, Richard


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Sproat, Iain


MacKay, Andrew
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Maclean, David
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Maclennan, Robert
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


McLoughlin, Patrick
Steen, Anthony


Madel, David
Stephen, Michael


Maitland, Lady Olga
Stern, Michael


Major, Rt Hon John
Stewart, Allan


Malone, Gerald
Streeter, Gary


Mans, Keith
Sumberg, David


Marland, Paul
Sykes, John


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Mates, Michael
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Thomason, Roy


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Merchant, Piers
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Milligan, Stephen
Thurnham, Peter


Mills, Iain
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Tracey, Richard


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Tredinnick, David


Monro, Sir Hector
Trend, Michael


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Trotter, Neville


Moss, Malcolm
Twinn, Dr Ian


Needham, Richard
Tyler, Paul


Nelson, Anthony
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Neubert, Sir Michael
Viggers, Peter


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Nicholls, Patrick
Waller, Gary


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Ward, John


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Norris, Steve
Waterson, Nigel


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Watts, John


Oppenheim, Phillip
Wells, Bowen


Ottaway, Richard
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Page, Richard
Whitney, Ray


Paice, James
Widdecombe, Ann


Patnick, Irvine
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Patten, Rt Hon John
Wigley, Dafydd


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Willetts, David


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Wilshire, David


Pickles, Eric
Wolfson, Mark






Yeo, Tim
Tellers for the Noes:


Young, Sir George (Acton)
Mr. Sydney Chapman and



Mr. Timothy Wood.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Budgen: On a point of order, Mr. Morris.

The Chairman: I will take points of order afterwards.

It being after Ten o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report progress; to sit again tomorrow.

Alnwick (Development Area Status)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Patnick.]

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder if you would be good enough to give the House some guidance as to how you intend to call right hon. and hon. Members in the course of our important discussions on the Maastricht treaty.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that, as he will observe, I am now a reincarnation of the Deputy Speaker, and therefore discussion on proceedings in the Committee is not in order. Mr. Beith.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I make the point that the right hon. Member who has the Adjournment debate is a Back Bencher and has waited a considerable time for it. I will take quick points of order, but no more.

Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have always understood that the duty of the Speaker was to protect the interests especially. of Back Benchers. I have also understood during the 22 years that I have been here that the House represents England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and that it makes no difference where an hon. Member comes from; but I have also understood that all sections of the community represented here would be called in debates to give their view.
I should like to ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if it is worth while for hon. Members from Northern Ireland to come to the House for the debate that has been concluded if, on all the days that they have asked to be called, they have not been called, and if, when they are called, the Government gag them. Is there no way whereby an hon. Member can be reasonably assured that, if he sits through all the debates—I understand that the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) wants to speak; I too have sat through all these debates—he will be allowed to speak?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying. This is a United Kingdom Parliament, and the Chair tries to choose hon. Members to contribute to all debates on that basis.

Mr. Budgen: rose—

Mr. A. J. Beith: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman has an Adjournment debate. The hon. Member has raised a point of order already.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Walker—with reluctance.

Mr. Bill Walker: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance. If hon. Members wish to participate in debates, either in a normal session in the Chamber or in Committee, does the Chair, in its capacity of protecting the interests of Back Benchers and all aspects of Back Benchers' interests—in other


words, whether they sit on the Opposition Benches or on the Government Benches—and in the interests of attempting to procure a balance, achieve that balance? If so, thus far no one from Scotland on the Conservative Benches has spoken.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have already ruled that I cannot comment at this stage on what went on in Committee.

Mr. Budgen: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. No, the hon. Member has had one point of order. I hope that this is a totally different one. Is it a different point of order?

Mr. Budgen: With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I was unable to make my point of order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member made his point of order. I made it quite clear, and I make it clear to all hon. Members in the Chamber at the moment, that I am now sitting here as Madam Speaker's Deputy. Neither she nor I can comment on what has happened in a Committee of the House. Points raised then should be raised at the next meeting of the Committee and not in the Adjournment debate of another hon. Member.

Mr. Beith: It is a convention of the House that hon. Members respect the fact that another hon. Member has the Adjournment debate, because the time that they take is taken out of the Adjournment debate.
I am grateful for the opportunity to raise a matter that is important to my constituents. I am glad to have the attention of the Minister for Industry. He and I were elected to Parliament on the same day, and he will know that since then I have often raised the need for development area status in the area that we are talking about.
I am talking about the Northumberland coalfield area. I am glad to be able to make a further plea on its behalf before the Minister reaches his final decisions about which parts of the country shall have development area status now that he is reviewing the map. I appreciate that he cannot give me the answer that I want in this debate, because the map for the whole country will be announced at once at a later debate. He will then be obliged to take into account the results of the review of the disastrous pit closures plan, even though nothing in his tool kit of development measures could possibly cope with the deluge of unemployment that would result if anything like that original programme of closures went ahead.
I want to direct the Minister's attention to an area that is already suffering desperately from decades of pit closures. The Alnwick and Amble travel-to-work area lost development area status in 1984, since when I have been campaigning with local authorities to get it restored. At the same time, the Morpeth and Ashington area, which includes an adjoining part of my constituency around Lynemouth and Ellington, was reduced to intermediate status, and I supported a similar campaign for the area. Sadly, the employment situation in these areas has worsened during the period and their cases therefore become stronger. Pit closures have continued, and with the area having to compete with assisted areas, almost no new inward investment has been recorded since 1984.
The area that we are discussing is the main part of the Northumberland coalfield. The Alnwick and Amble travel-to work area includes the town of Alnwick, which, although it is a market town, has depended significantly on coal mining, and Amble, which was once a busy mining and coal shipping town. The area also includes Seahouses, traditionally a fishing port with significant tourism, and remote and beautiful areas such as the Rothbury area.
The fact that the travel-to work area was so wide was one of the factors that led to its loss of development status in 1984, because it diluted the high unemployment figure in Amble and Alnwick, but unemployment has now increased throughout the area. Alnwick district council has submitted a strong and well-documented case to the review on behalf of the area.
The Hadston and Broomhill part of Castle Morpeth district, consisting mainly of a large housing estate built specifically to house people from the old mining villages, is also in the Alnwick and Amble travel-to work area. Castle Morpeth borough council pointed out in its submission to the Department of Trade and Industry some months ago how absurd it is that this deprived part of its area, which at that time had 12 per cent. unemployment, did not have development area status, yet the much more prosperous Ponteland part of the area, with 3.5 per cent. unemployment, had the full benefit of development area status.
Those figures have increased significantly since, but there is still a huge difference, with the most prosperous area having development status and the most deprived not. Castle Morpeth would like to keep its development status in the Ponteland area because of the potential for development at the airport, but it throws into sharp focus how wrong it is that the most deprived part of the borough should not have development status.
A recent study of the Hadston estate for the Northumberland coalfield task force, which was set up with the help of the Minister's Department, revealed that 38 per cent. of unemployed claimants had been out of work for more than two years, and that 55 per cent. of those interviewed had worked for a total of less than a year in the previous five years. This is a desperate problem of long-term unemployment, with resulting social problems in an area that the Government have wrongly excluded from assisted area help.
Immediately south of Hadston are the coalfield communities of Ellington, Lynemouth, Linton and Widdrington, which have the inadequate intermediate status because they are in the Morpeth and Ashington travel-to-work areas. The whole of the area has been hit hard by a succession of pit closures in recent years. At Shilbottle and Whittle collieries in the Alnwick area—although Whittle now operates as a small private drift—at Lynemouth and at nearby Woodhorn, Ashington and Bates collieries thousands of jobs have disappeared in the past decade.
The only remaining British coal pit in Northumberland, and potentially the only one in the north-east, is in my constituency, at Ellington, and it is no secret that it was on the closure list until days before that dreadful list was published. Closely linked with the fate of that colliery at Ellington are the Alcan power station and smelter, as well as the Blyth power station. More than half the jobs at Alcan have gone as production has been cut back. If any


one of this complex of related industries were to go altogether, the whole structure could go, with the loss of more than 3,000 jobs.
PA Cambridge Economic Consultants have advised Northumberland county council that, if that happens, unemployment in the Morpeth and Ashington travel-to-work area would approach 17 per cent. That was the advice some months ago. On the latest national figures, that would be higher. A similarly sharp rise would happen in the Amble and Alnwick area.
Even on the most optimistic scenario, without such a catastrophe, they expected unemployment to rise to 15 per cent. in the Morpeth and Ashington area, and to more than 13 per cent. in the Alnwick and Amble area. In the meantime, since they made those forecasts, the Alnwick and Amble figure has reached 14.2 per cent.
Unfortunately, other industries on which this area depends face dramatic job losses. The Alnwick and Amble area has an exceptionally high proportion of employment in agriculture, forestry and fishing. It has been estimated that 800 jobs will be lost in farming in Northumberland following the CAP reforms, and at least a third of those will be in this area. Fishing and associated trades face certain job losses because of restrictions on fishing opportunities and the Government's deplorable decision to phase out the north-east salmon fishery. The building industry has been devasted in the recession. Indeed, the main source of new employment in the Amble area has been the prison service, one of the few industries that seems to have survived the recession in reasonable numbers.
From an employment point of view, this whole area from Alnwick to Ashington needs the same level of support, and needs it very badly. The DTI recognised that under the previous Minister, when it set up the coalfield task force. Europe recognises it; the whole area is eligible for help under objective 2 and under the RECHAR scheme, which was so long delayed by the argument over additionality.
A lot of work is going on to help the area through these schemes, through local authorities and by the efforts of industry. Other things are needed, like full dualling of the A1 and investment in education and housing, currently squeezed by local government spending restrictions, but much of this work will be undermined if, when the new assisted area map is announced, all or part of the Northumberland coalfield is left without assisted area status, competing with areas which do have it and can therefore offer better incentives to inward investors or existing businesses.
Many of the businesses already established within our area belong to groups and companies which have plants elsewhere in Britain or abroad, and their head offices or main boards may very well shift new investment to plants which are enjoying development status either in Britain or in some equivalent form in other countries. The Northern Development Company has made clear that the evidence of past investment is that the north of England will not attract inward investment without assisted areas status.
The main factors which the Government have said that they will take into account in making their decision on this matter are current rates of unemployment, persistence of unemployment rates above the national average, the proportion of long-term unemployed in the local work force, the likely future demand for jobs and peripherality and distance from markets. The Alnwick and Amble area

and Morpeth and Ashington area both pass all those tests. Unemployment in both areas is at present more than 14 per cent., with male unemployment at or above 20 per cent. and as high as 70 per cent. on some housing estates.
Apart from the impact of limited amounts of seasonal work, a large part of the unemployment is long-term. The job losses I have described in mining, farming and fishing, and the fragile nature of employment in the Ellington, Lynemouth and Blyth complex, mean that we must prepare for future job losses on a large scale. The area could hardly be more peripheral: it is further from London and from the channel tunnel than any other part of England.
The case is so strong that I do not see how the Minister can, in all justice, fail to accept it.

The Minister for Industry (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): As the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said, we were elected to the House on the same day. Therefore, it is a privilege to reply to his debate on what he sees as the need for assistance for his constituency. I know that he takes a great interest in his constituency, as I do in mine, and I sometimes envy the opportunity that he has to raise issues as he has done this evening.
The right hon. Gentleman understandably focused his remarks on the importance of assisted area status. It is especially understandable when one bears in mind the fact that the area, or part of it, had the status before 1984. As he knows, the current review of the future shape of the assisted area map was announced last June, and the criteria on which the review is based were set out in the consultation document.
We invited interested parties to submit their views and, as the consultation document explains, the primary base for the review is the range of statistical information on unemployment, which includes data on the current level, the persistence of unemployment rates above the national average in recent years and the proportion of the long-term unemployed in the local work force.
Other factors considered include demographic changes and the likely future demand for jobs in the area, taking account of the growth or decline in local industries—I shall deal with that point in relation to the mining industry to which the right hon. Gentleman referred—and other measures of economic performance, including activity rates and the important issue of peripherality to which he also referred. As he said, in England one cannot get further from the channel tunnel—I do not know what his hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) would say about the situation across the border.
The review is based on the existing travel-to-work areas, which are broad approximations of self-contained labour markets. It will be a year or more—I suspect more—before new travel-to-work areas are defined using the data from the 1991 census. The current map covered about 35 per cent. of the working population of Great Britain when it was designated in 1984. Of that, development areas covered 15 per cent. and intermediate areas the remaining 20 per cent. The right hon. Gentleman said something about the inadequacy of intermediate area status, but I do not think it is regarded in that way by many of those who have submitted requests for such status. It is a valuable and valued status.
It is unlikely that the coverage of the new map will be greater than now, and it could be somewhat less. Coverage of the new map will, of course, have to be agreed with the European Commission, as it was in 1984.
The broad objectives of Government policy with regard to the assisted area map continue to be to reduce regional imbalances in employment opportunities and to encourage the development of indigenous potential within the assisted areas on a stable and long-term basis.
During the consultation period last year, more than 1,500 written representations were received from Great Britain, and, by the end of last year, Ministers at the Department of Trade and Industry had held meetings with more than 50 delegations, in addition to the delegations seen by my colleagues in Wales and Scotland during the same period.
I have received detailed representations, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, from Northumberland county council and Alnwick district council in support of development area status for the Alnwick and Amble travel-to-work area. Those representations cover comprehensively the effects on the TTWA of structural unemployment changes, especially in the coal industry which, as he said, had a considerable effect on the area some time ago. They also cover the difficulties faced by the area in attracting new industries because of the distances and the lower-than-average rates of small firm formation and participation in economic activity.
Before the previous review of the assisted area map in 1984, the Alnwick and Amble travel-to-work area enjoyed intermediate area status. At that time, Ministers decided that other areas had more pressing problems and that Alnwick and Amble should not be included in the revised map. Of course I am aware that that decision was, not surprisingly, not well received by the county council. That proves that intermediate area status is valued by local authorities and industries.
The current review, like that of 1984, is based on travel-to-work areas, which are the smallest areas for which reliable statistical information on unemployment is available. However, loss of intermediate area status has not meant that the area has been without assistance, and I shall say a few words about the situation since 1984.
First, there is the status of the area for European regional policy purposes. The various maps defining eligibility for European Community structural funds are separate from the assisted area map—which defines eligibility for aid from my Department—and are drawn up against criteria decided by the Community. I expect to receive from the European Commission at the end of this month proposals for new regulations governing, amongst other things, the selection of objective 2 areas—those suffering from industrial decline. The designation of areas under the new arrangements is unlikely to be completed until the middle of this year, and it will come into force from 1 January 1994.
As a result of its status under objective 2 of the structural funds, the Alnwick and Amble area has had access to individual project support from the European regional development fund and, subsequently, to the Tyne and Wear/south-east Northumberland integrated development operations programme—referred to as "TAWSEN". In addition, part of the travel-to-work area surrounding

Amble is eligible under the TAWSEN RECHAR programme for former coal-mining areas, under which £11.5 million is available. So far, 53 applications have been received for more than £6 million of this, and £3.7 million has been approved for 27 projects.
A major beneficiary of European regional development fund support has been the marina development in Amble, which received a £700,000 grant in 1986. Other projects that have received support include the development of the employment training workshop at Amble, the second stage of the development of the Alnwick playhouse and improvements to tourism information throughout the area.
Secondly, the Rural Development Commission has operated a programme of advice for businesses and for the provision of premises in the Alnwick and Amble travel-to-work area. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is well aware of this, as, last month, he performed the opening ceremony for the scheme of 10 workshop units at Alnwick—units ranging from 550 sq ft to 1,850 sq ft—developed by English Estates for the Rural Development Commission. That was part of a programme that has seen the provision in the Alnwick and Amble area since 1984 of more than 54,000 sq ft of workshop units and 10,000 sq ft of factory units, at a total cost of about £2.5 million. Of the total of 108,000 sq ft of space in 61 units in the Alnwick and Amble travel-to-work area, 70,000 sq ft in 39 units is let, providing an estimated 280 jobs.
The Rural Development Commission also provides grants to return redundant buildings to productive business use; marketing and exhibition grants to help rural firms to achieve profitable sales; and quality assurance courses to help rural businesses to prepare to accreditation. A wide variety of projects have been supported in the area, ranging from the provision of a rural coalfields development worker based in Hadston to a grant towards a centre for voluntary organisations to provide a "one stop" service. Since 1989, the area has had £165,000 of funding approved under the rural development programme.
The Rural Development Commission has just begun a review of its rural priority areas. It has published its proposals for handling the review, which it expects to complete later this year.
Enterprise support for small and medium-sized businesses in the Alnwick and Amble travel-to-work area is provided by the training and enterprise council for Northumberland at its customer support centre in Alnwick, and includes access to business counselling services. The Northumberland TEC also provides a range of training support measures, including the business enterprise programme and business growth training.
From its total budget for this financial year of over £14.8 million the TEC has contracted to provide 126,000 weeks of youth training, or more than 2,000 places, and 42,000 weeks of employment training, or a further 1,200 places. I am glad to say that it has been distinguished as the only north-east TEC, and only one of three nationally, to achieve four bonus points in the TEC performance awards for 1991–92.
I congratulate the TEC on its achievements to date. I am sure that it will continue to make a major contribution to the development of the skills of the work force of the area. As I am sure the right hon. Gentleman agrees, the development of skills is particularly important when it comes to ensuring economic revival and the strength of the


area's economy. I look forward in due course to seeing the Northumberland TEC's response to the invitation to bid for a one-stop shop.

Mr. Beith: The Minister referred to a number of bodies that are helping in the area. I hope he will note that every one of those bodies treats the coalfield area as a whole and works throughout it. Not one of them divides it into three separate categories of eligibility, as his Department has done up to now, and as I hope it will stop doing when it publishes its new map.

Mr. Sainsbury: I note what the right hon. Gentleman says, and I am sure that they, like my Department, are seeking to target their help effectively to where it is most needed. I recognise that the area, like the rest of Britain, has been experiencing difficult trading conditions in recent times, and I note from the submission made by the district council that the position of the area in relation to the whole of Great Britain is broadly the same now as it was in 1984.
I was also pleased to note, from the same source, its estimate of a net increase of 12 per cent. in the number of VAT-registered businesses in the area over the same period, even in the face of the difficulties to which the submissions, and the right hon. Member, referred. The Government will continue their efforts to dismantle unnecessary bureaucracy and encourage the formation of new businesses.
Despite its relatively small size—approximately 1,000 businesses and a work force of about 14,000—I am pleased to note from local press reports the successes achieved by businesses in the area. I understand that Phoenix Mountaineering, which was set up in Amble 11 years ago, has grown to employ 130 people and has, for the fourth season, been the supplier of ski wear to the British Olympic team. The right hon. Gentleman will join me in congratulating the company on that. The enterprise of local residents has been further demonstrated by 3 Bears Playthings of Rothbury. which recently received a European Community award under the women's enterprise initiative for creating employment opportunities for women in a rural area.
Understandably, the right hon. Gentleman referred to reductions in employment in the coal industry. I am very much aware of the importance attached by the local community to the last deep mine in Northumberland; as the right hon. Member knows, Ellington is not among the collieries currently under review. My officials in the DTI north-east regional office, and my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy, in his capacity as Minister for the north-east, have had discussions with members of the local business community about the strategic interdependence of coal mining at Ellington, the activities of the port of Blyth and aluminium manufacture at the British Alcan smelter.
The importance of those activities to employment in the immediate area and beyond is recognised. As a result, I assure the right hon. Member that I am fully aware of the local situation and its effect on the local community.
The county of Northumberland has a proud history as one of the earliest areas in which coal was mined on an

industrial scale. It is perhaps inevitable that there have been extensive closures in the last 20 years as coal reserves have become worked out or too costly to access. Northumberland county council has clearly brought out in its submission to me the position since 1980, with closures of six collieries, the last being Ashington in 1988. I recognise that the closure of the Ashington complex, like Ellington outside the Alnwick and Amble travel -to-work area, undoubtedly had its effects in the right hon. Member's constituency.
In recognition of the difficulties faced in the Wansbeck district of the Morpeth and Ashington travel-to-work area, my Department is supporting the work of the Wansbeck initiative. That body involves local authority, central Government and enterprise agency members and is aimed at the regeneration of the area, which includes the former Ashington complex. Substantial progress has been made in dealing with the residues of coal mining, and the plans for the Ashington business park mark the next stage in the reclamation of the area. When completed, those will provide landscaped amenity land and a 50-acre business park capable of providing 500,000 sq ft of accommodation.
The right hon. Member will welcome the efforts currently being made by the reconstituted Northumberland coalfields task force, in which my Department participates, to regenerate the area from Alnwick to Cramlington. It has set up a number of subordinate task groups, each served by a particular district. It is perhaps most appropriate to the subject of the economic regeneration of the Alnwick and Amble travel-to-work area that Alnwick district council looks after the business development group on which DTI, English Estates, British Coal Enterprise, the Rural Development Commission and other bodies are represented, and that co-operation is valuable.
I have carefully noted what the right hon. Gentleman said. I assure him that the points he raised will be carefully considered and taken into account with all the other submissions I have received, including those from Northumberland county council and Alnwick district council specifically concerning the area.

Mr. Beith: I am sure that the Minister will remember that the relevant part of Castle Morpeth borough, and the parishes to which I referred, must also feature in his study.

Mr. Sainsbury: As I said, I have carefully noted everything that the right hon. Gentleman said. He will appreciate that I cannot today anticipate the completion of the assisted area map review as a whole and make a specific announcement about a particular area. The review will be concluded as early as possible in 1993. Taking account of the coal inquiry, an announcement will be made as soon as possible after the necessary clearance with the European Commission.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes to Eleven o'clock.